Constructing the Burton Mausoleum

by Ieva Daujotaite, History Research Volunteer

Nestled in the churchyard of St Mary Magdalen Roman Catholic Church on North Worple Way, the Burton Mausoleum is an exceptional piece of Victorian funerary architecture (Fig.1). It’s famed for its tent-like design and for housing the remains of explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton and his wife, Lady Isabel Burton (Fig.2). But while its exotic style and notable occupants have drawn much attention, the story of those who actually built it has been largely overlooked. This article sheds light on the skilled artisans behind one of Mortlake’s most remarkable monuments: Messrs Dyke & Son.

Fig. 1: Burton Mausoleum, c. 1890.
Fig. 2: The mausoleum door with marble plaques.

Commissioning the Mausoleum

Why Lady Isabel chose Dyke & Son remains unclear. We know she picked St Mary Magdalen Roman Catholic Church because she was a devout Catholic, some of her relatives were buried there, and she had a close relationship with the parish’s first priest. That connection may have led her to Dyke & Son – possibly through a recommendation. But despite combing through parish records, no solid evidence has surfaced. What makes the choice even more intriguing is that Dyke & Son weren’t local. At a time when churches typically hired nearby craftsmen, the decision to commission stonemasons based on the other side of the city stands out. This unusual decision invites us to look deeper into the story behind the mausoleum’s makers.

Messrs Dyke & Sons: a family business

At the time the mausoleum was built, Messrs Dyke & Son was based at 49 Highgate Road in Kentish Town, Camden. The company was founded by Richard John Dyke, born in 1830, who worked as a bricklayer, builder, and stonemason. Before relocating to London and officially registering the business with three of his four sons—Charles, George, and William—Richard had partnered with fellow stonemasons in Ashford, Kent. One notable partner was Anthony Burton (despite the shared surname, there’s no evidence connecting him to Richard and Isabel Burton). The duration of this partnership is uncertain, but a newspaper notice from 1852 shows it ended amid financial difficulties linked to debts owed by Anthony Burton. Compounding these early challenges, Richard John Dyke was listed as insolvent in 1855, receiving temporary legal protection due to unpaid debts. It’s likely that forming a family business with his sons was, at least in part, a strategic move to regain financial control and stability after a notably turbulent period.

The precise length of Messrs Dyke & Son’s operation remains uncertain, though the earliest documented company record dates to 1882. Beyond their primary address at 49 Highgate Road, the company also owned a nearby workshop at number 53, featuring a sizable yard that likely served as a workspace or showroom for their completed works. For approximately 15 years, Highgate Road was the company’s base. However, a newspaper notice from 1896 announcing the sale of building materials collected from 49 Highgate Road and several adjacent properties suggests significant construction activity and strongly indicates that the firm relocated that year. Importantly, this was not a sign of closure. Just two months prior to the materials sale, Messrs Dyke & Son were actively seeking an apprentice in architectural and monumental sculpture, demonstrating that they continued their craft, most likely from a new location.

Victorian Stonemasonry and Education

The admittance of apprentices was standard practice for most stonemasonry businesses and served as a vital stepping stone for any aspiring mason. Apprenticeships were lengthy, typically lasting between five and seven years. Those who successfully mastered the traditional skills would advance to journeyman status and, after gaining several more years of experience, could eventually become a master mason.

While this informal apprenticeship model remained effective through much of the 19th century, the rapid pace of industrialisation and growing global competition sparked concerns about the future of traditional trades such as stonemasonry, carpentry, and blacksmithing (Fig. 3). To remain competitive, it was increasingly clear that vocational education needed to be supplemented with formal training in drawing, geometry, materials science, and emerging building technologies.

In the specific context of late 19th- and early 20th-century monumental masonry, there was anxiety over British stone-carvers’ ability to compete against what was referred to as the “chilly horrors of the modern cemetery,” marked by a flood of ready-made tombstones from overseas. To meet these challenges, the British government launched educational initiatives aimed at providing formal technical training for working-class boys. Notably, in 1879, with financial support from the twelve Livery Companies, the South London Technical School of Art was established in Lambeth, offering courses in stonemasonry, woodcarving, plasterwork, and metalwork.

Yet despite these efforts, many of the new institutions were either geographically distant or operated on limited schedules, making them difficult to access—particularly for young workers based in industrial hubs like East London. To help fill this gap, smaller-scale, temporary initiatives such as education-focused industrial exhibitions emerged. These events were designed to foster skill development and provide visibility for emerging talent. At least one of Dyke’s sons, George Henry Dyke, took part in these efforts. In 1880, he exhibited a marble inkstand in the Artistic category at the Bow Industrial Exhibition—an event that gave young artisans from areas like the East End, Clerkenwell, and Southwark a platform to showcase their work and connect with potential clients.

Held at the Bow and Bromley Institute, the exhibition featured around 450 aspiring and emerging craftsmen, whose works were organised into five categories: 1) Mechanical, 2) Artistic, 3) General, 4) Fabrics and Fancy Work, and 5) Young Persons Under 18. George Henry Dyke exhibited a marble inkstand, numbered 114, in the Artistic category. This category was further divided into subgroups such as oil painting, watercolour, and artistic works in terra cotta, stone, china etc. Other exhibitors in the same category showcased a diverse range of items, including decorative tiles, terra cotta centrepieces, stoneware vases, plaster figures, metal cups, ceiling decorations, and even a plaster head of Christ.

Fig. 3: Steam engine elevator, undated.

Artistic Ambition and Professional Identity

George H Dyke’s choice to exhibit under the ‘Artistic’ category is particularly notable, as it suggests a deliberate effort to present his skills as those of a creative artist rather than a mere tradesman. Unlike their father, who identified as a bricklayer, stonemason, builder, and likely grounded the company’s early identity in the practical world of skilled labour, all three Dyke sons adopted the title of ‘sculptors,’ signalling a conscious shift toward artistic recognition and elevating their work beyond traditional trade.

Fig 4 and 5: Memorial of Sir Gregory Lovell in the chancel of St Mary’s Church, Merton. Photograph by Bob Speel.

This repositioning may have given the Dyke family a competitive edge in a stonemasonry trade increasingly challenged by cheaper, mechanical work produced abroad. Beyond stone carving as sculptors, Messrs Dyke & Son also offered sculpture restoration services. For example, in 1889 they completed the full restoration of the Gregory Lovell Monument in the chancel of St Mary’s Church, Merton (Fig.4-5). Additionally, in 1888, the company was consulted for a cost estimate to repair the terra-cotta figures on Gloucester Gate Bridge, highlighting their reputation for both craftsmanship and conservation (Fig.6-7).

Fig 6 and 7: Crumbling motifs on Gloucester Gate Bridge in Camden, photographed by Paul Talling.

Imperial Fashions around Death

Years of crafting tombstones and restoring architectural features had likely prepared Dyke & Son for a commission as distinctive as the Burton Mausoleum. Unlike their more conventional headstone work, this would become their most iconic creation—now extensively researched and protected as a Grade II* listed structure.

Fig. 8: details of Drawing of 35 Monumental Designs and Mural Tablets. 31 May 1882. By sculptors Dyke & Son. The National Archives.

Although the concept of modelling the tomb after a Syrian desert tent is credited to Lady Isabel Burton, Dyke & Son weren’t approaching the idea without precedent. Their 1882 catalogue of headstone designs shows hints of similarly foreign influences. Nestled among typical Gothic Revival forms are subtle nods to Orientalist aesthetics: tomb 56 is a direct reference to an Egyptian-style obelisk, whilst tomb 36, for example, features horseshoe arches and lotus columns reminiscent of Moorish architecture (Fig.8).

This engagement with Orientalism wasn’t unique to just Dyke & Son. As Britain’s imperial footprint expanded, so too did Victorian fascination with the “exotic” – a nation-wide cultural curiosity that filtered into domestic interiors, public exhibitions, and yes, even cemeteries. Consider Liverpool’s 1868 tomb of William Mackenzie, inspired by Nubian pyramids (Fig.9), the Egyptian-style pylon of the Kilmorey Mausoleum in St Margarets, Twickenham (Fig.10) or the grave of the Hartley family in Highgate cemetery (Fig.11). These stylistic hybrids bore more resemblance to buildings than traditional gravestones, requiring stonemasons to possess not just technical precision but also a sharp understanding of contemporary tastes around death, memory, and the afterlife – skills edging closer to those of an architect than a sole builder.

Fig. 9: William McKenzie, Liverpool
Fig. 10: Earl of Kilmorey, St Margarets, Twickenham
Fig. 11: Hartley Family, Highgate Cemetery
Fig. 12: Burton Mausoleum

To some, the Burton Mausoleum (Fig. 12) remains “a notable monstrosity of Victorian taste”; to others, “one of Britain’s most significant tombs”. However one views it, the monument offers a fragmented yet revealing glimpse into the lives of its creators. In bringing it to life, Dyke & Son navigated the demands of Victorian industrialism and the currents of imperial fashion—not only as craftsmen, but as aspiring artists, businesspeople, and a family.

 

Bibliography

‘A Knight to Remember’. 16 Aug. 1985. Richmond Local Studies Library.

‘Commanding Centre Premises’. Pancras Guardian and Camden and Kentish Towns Reporter, 8 Oct. 1881, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001796/18811008/153/0008. British Newspaper Archive.

Deaths’. Kentish Gazette, 8 Dec. 1857, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000235/18571208/069/0005. British Newspaper Archive.

‘Gloucester Gate Bridge’. Pancras Guardian and Camden and Kentish Towns Reporter, 10 Nov. 1888, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001796/18881110/033/0003 https://www.londonslostrivers.com/cumberland-arm.html. British Newspaper Archive.

‘Industrial and Fine Art Exhibition at Bow’. The Tower Hamlets Independent, 3 July 1880, https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma990206446240109251&context=L&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=LibraryCatalog&query=any,contains,%22bow%20and%20bromley%20institute%22&offset=0. British Library.

‘Insolvents Interim Orders’. Morning Advertiser, 19 Sept. 1855, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001427/18550919/019/0003.

Joseph Epstein. ‘Into the Wild’. New Yorker, Nov. 1996. Richmond Local Studies Library.

‘Mausoleum of Sir Richard and Lady Burton, Churchyard of St Mary Magdalen’. Historic England, Oct. 1973, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1065392.

‘Merton’. Wallington & Carshalton Herald, 21 Dec. 1889, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004612/18891221/110/0006. British Newspaper Archive.

‘M Is for Memorials’. Caring For God’s Acre, 11 2024, https://www.caringforgodsacre.org.uk/m-is-for-memorials/.

‘Partnerships Dissolved’. Globe, 28 July 1852, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001652/18520728/009/0001. British Newspaper Archive.

‘Partnerships Dissolved’. Perry’s Bankrupt Gazette, 31 July 1852, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000207/18520731/018/0006. British Newspaper Archive.

‘Sale by Mr. Alfred Squirl’. Kilburn Times, 15 May 1896, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001813/18960515/093/0004. British Newspaper Archive.

‘Sir Richard Burton’. Morning Post, 10 Dec. 1890, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000174/18901210/008/0002. British Newspaper Archive.

‘Situations Vacant’. Kilburn Times, 13 Mar. 1896, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001813/18960313/051/0002. British Newspaper Archive.

‘South London Technical School of Art’. Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951, vol. University of Glasgow History of Art and HATII, 2011, https://www.sculpture.gla.ac.uk/mapping/public/view/organization.php?id=msib2_1207870826.

‘The Bow Exhibition’. East London Observer, 17 July 1880, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000442/18800717/069/0006. British Newspaper Archive.

‘The Exhibition at Bow’. East London Observer, 31 July 1880, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000442/18800731/049/0006. British Newspaper Archive.

‘The Industrial Exhibition at Bow’. Daily News Friday, 13 Aug. 1880, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000051/18800813/051/0005. British Newspaper Archive.

Doug Keister. ‘A True Story in Stone: Burton Mausoleum’. Com, 10 May 2013, https://www.mausoleums.com/a-true-story-in-stone/.

Dyke & Son. Sculptors. COPY ‘Drawing of 35 Monumental Designs and Mural Tablets. 1/57/529’. 31 May 1882. The National Archives.

S. Frith. ‘Stone-Carvers’. Daily Herald, 10 Jan. 1938, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000681/19380110/095/0008. British Newspaper Archive.

Gifford, James D. The Burton Tomb. 2008, http://www.sirrichardfrancisburton.com/rfb_burtontomb.html.

Kirwan, L. P. (1975), Meditations on the Burton Mausoleum at Mortlake The Geographical Journal 141, No. 1 (Mar., 1975), pp. 49-54.

Lovell, Mary S., A Rage to Live. Hachette, London, 1998.

Murray Hedgcock. ‘Campaign to Restore Burton Mausoleum’. The Times, 2010, https://www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/campaign-to-restore-burton-mausoleum-jls8mwwsk8k.

Post Office Directory. Richard John Dyke. 1882, https://www.findmypast.co.uk/?ds_kid=43700029858607037&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=1048728614&gbraid=0AAAAADzI7nj9T09J3EKau6xAzE2Hy38Sj&gclid=Cj0KCQjwu7TCBhCYARIsAM_S3NgRpCvmw0N0P9vtWbheN5SPpe3y5xSIM3Y4x7VODmR_BqGP3ry1kREaAsDZEALw_wcB#search-our-family-history-records.

Post Office Home Counties Directory London. 1855, https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61265/.

William Walker Knox. ‘Apprenticeship and De-Skilling in Britain, 1850–1914’. Cambridge University Press, 1986.