History Sunday: Edinburgh

Last week I trekked most of the way up the country to go home.  What trip to Scotland is complete without another trek across to Edinburgh, the beautiful capital?  There is a traditional rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh, but I think rather than comparing them it's better to enjoy the unique experiences both have to offer.

Edinburgh is older than Glasgow, and has held a somewhat more important purpose in Scotland's history, and that's what this History Sunday post is focusing on.  When Glasgow was nothing but a settlement outside of the Cathedral, Edinburgh was home to Kings and Queens, and the government, a position it still holds today.

On my trip to Edinburgh, I went to see the castle, which I've actually only visited about once before.  I know, who goes to Edinburgh and doesn't see the infamous castle?  It's a bit of a tourist trap, obviously.  It's like going to the Tower of London, or Madam Tussaud's in the UK capital, for a lot of people the enjoyment is taken away by the sheer number of people being herded around.  I would love to wander around Edinburgh without having to navigate my way through a group of Americans, or avoiding the camera lenses of the Chinese tour.  Unfortunately I didn't have that privilege this time and so you also get to see the other tourists.

The Edinburgh Castle the world knows today is relatively modern, and still used as an army Barracks, but the sight has been used since the Iron Age.  It won't surprise people to know that the rock it's built on is volcanic, but fear not those who still want to go and visit, it won't erupt any time soon.  It's obvious from every picture you see of this grand castle that the rock is not just another Great Glen, and it dominates every picture of Edinburgh; the views are amazing.

The earliest source mentioning Edinburgh was Ptolemy's map in the 2nd Century, this area belonged to the Votadini tribe and is recorded as Alauna, which means rocky place.  As with many things from this early on his history there are many legends surrounding this piece of land, and the legendary kings, and if you're interested some quick Googling should be better then me.  I did listen to the audioguide but I'm afraid history this early in Scotland doesn't really interest me, so let's skip ahead.

The next recorded name of Edinburgh was in the 7th Century, and now this piece of land was called "Din Eidyn" in a Welsh poem.  The tale in the poem is about a King of Goddodin (what the Eastern part of Scotland was called during this period in time) and his warriors who feasted before riding off to battle with the Angles of what is now England, and being subsequently slaughtered in the act.  A cheery poem.  After the real defeat of the warriors of Goddodin Edinburgh became part of the lands of the Kingdom of Northumbria, one of the seven other kingdoms of the English heptarchy that came to be in the centuries following the Roman departure from Britain.  By the tenth century Northumbria had been united into England, and hence Edinburgh along with it.  According to the audioguide it was after the Goddodin defeat by the Northumbrians that "Din Eidyn" became Edinburgh, and has remained to this day.  To give you a better idea Burgh is an Anglo-Saxon word and doesn't originate from Scotland or any of the languages that has ever been spoken here.  "Gow" on the end of Glasgow, Linlithgow, etc, is a word with Scottish origins and means hollow, or dip.

Unfortunately information from this period comes from middens excavated on the site, and so is sparse, as you can imagine.  The next we hear from the castle is in the 11th Century after the death of the legendary King Malcolm III.  He was the first Scottish King I truly learned about during my travels, and his wife, the illustrious Saint Margaret.  I've briefly spoken about both in my post about Dunfermline Abbey, where she's buried.

Edinburgh Castle hasn't always been called this, and during St Margaret's lifetime it was known as the Castle of Maidens; she was here when she learnt of the death of her husband, Malcolm.  The origin of this name is a mystery that has a few origins in the various chronicles of history, but is was used frequently until the 17th Century.

It was Malcolm and Margaret's son, good ol' King David, that developed Edinburgh and planted the roots for its future importance in the fate of Scotland.  In my opinion it was the first call of anyone wanting to invade Scotland, due to its significance within the royal family.  Wallace and Edward III fought over it, Cromwell marched all the way across the border to destroy it; in fact it's been demolished and rebuilt so many times in its history I'm surprised it doesn't look more like Linlithgow Palace, nothing but a shell of its former glory, literally.

thanks to the panoramic mode on my phone

The oldest building still standing, intact, inside of the walls is St Margaret's chapel which dates from the 11th Century; dedicated to David's mother.  It is small, no more than ten people can fit inside at once, if I remember correctly, but is is lovely; and for those of you who're getting married soon you can have the ceremony in this little chapel, and then the reception at the castle as well.

The castle was destroyed by William Wallace during the Wars of Independence, his thought was that if the Scots couldn't storm and keep it, then the English couldn't have it.  It's been rebuilt since and King James VI and I of Scotland and England, respectively, was born in a tiny room here, which you can still visit today.  There is a War memorial inside of the walls which I didn't go in, and also the Scottish crown jewels (that's right, we have our own separate set) are kept here for people to take a look.

Edinburgh Castle has a long and bloody history that is just too rich to go through in this post.  Much blood was spilled, many buildings destroyed, and many births, deaths, marriages, romances, hatreds, and history came to pass here.  If you ever do get a chance Edinburgh is a must, although it's always busy and so hardly needs my ambassadorial skill.  I think the amazing Fudge Kitchen shop might, at the opposite end of the Royal Mile from the castle, but definitely worth the wander down (I don't like fudge but I eat the stuff they make).  A tour-guide, or even the audio-guide, will do a much better job than I have of informing you about Edinburgh's long history, or even just Wikipedia.

History Sunday: Isobel of Mar, and Elizabeth de Burgh

Quite a random History Sunday this week I'm afraid, folks; I was having trouble choosing a topic, just like I was last week.  I contemplated Henry II, but I get the feeling that will be a three post segment at least.

There are two women I will be focusing on in this History Sunday, both are the wives of King Robert I of Scotland, commonly known as Robert the Bruce.  Everyone (well almost everyone) knows Robert the Bruce, he was one of the only men I was actually taught about in my history class at school from the middle ages (William Wallace, of course, being the other one).  Both men fought during the Wars of Scottish Independence from England during the 13th and 14th centuries.  Wallace was killed, whilst Bruce managed to wrangle the Scottish throne away from the English and regain independence (ish).

I think history likes to give Wallace a reputation for being just an ordinary fellow, a classic average Joe turned national hero story to tell the children, but in reality Wallace was a landowner in his own right.  Unfortunately I've become bored of Wallace's place in history, he's just been so overused for everything Scotland orientated.  So has Robert the Bruce on some level, but not the women behind the glory and fables.

Isobel of Mar (commonly known in English as Isabella, in Gaelic as Iseabail).  I translated her name this way because Isobel is the modern Scottish spelling of the Gaelic for whatever origins that overused name has (and because in my mind the name Isabella will be forever placed at Isabella of France's feet, even though that wasn't actually her name either).  Isobel was the daughter of the Earl of Mar, Domhnall I, and his wife Helen, or Ellen, who was the illegitimate daughter of Llewelyn ap Iowerth, Prince of Wales.  There isn't really much to read about poor Isobel.  One of the interesting things is that she and Robert were apparently in love when they married, the reason for the match was that her father thought that Bruce was the rightful Scottish King, and so by making an alliance with him solidified his family's position in Scotland (he must have been confident Bruce could claim the throne from the English).  She was 18 at the time of her marriage (is it just me or is anyone else thinking this was quite old for a young woman of the nobility?  I'm so used to pre-pubescent brides).  Soon after she became pregnant and gave birth to her one and only child, a daughter, Marjorie, who would go onto have Robert II, the founder of the Stuart/Stewart Kings.  She died before Robert was ever crowned King of Scots and so Isobel never gained the title Queen, and her father's hopes were no doubt a little disappointed.

Six years after the death of his first wife Bruce married his second and final wife, Elizabeth de Burgh.  She was the daughter of Richard Og de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, and his wife, simply referred to as Margarite.  Elizabeth married Bruce in 1302 when she was 13 years old (she was actually born on Scottish soil in Dunfermline, Fife).  In 1306 Bruce had a good control of power in Scotland and was crowned King of Scots in 1306, Elizabeth was crowned Queen at this point as well.  Bruce did this despite the fact that the English hadn't given up their claims to Scotland (typical Scottish f***k you to the English if you ask me).  Unfortunately, as with most victories during a warring period, this triumphant patch was short lived.

The women of the Bruce family had a hard time during the Scottish wars of independence, whether they were born into it or married.  I always find reading about what happened to them awful.  The Scottish army was defeated by the English force at Methven in 1306.  The Queen, Marjorie Bruce (her stepdaughter), and her husband's two sisters Mary and Christine/Christian fled to Kildrummy castle where they came under siege by the English army.

When the castle fell (due to a blacksmith with fragile loyalty when it came to money) all men, including Bruce's brother Nigel, were hanged and killed; the women had already fled under the escort of the Earl of Atholl.  The ladies were eventually found by the English, or rather handed over by another traitor sensing the tides were changing.  Mary Bruce and Isabella MacDuff (Countess of Buchan) were put in wooden cages which hung from the walls of Roxburgh and Berwick castles.  Marjorie Bruce and her Aunt Christine were sent to separate nunneries, and Elizabeth was placed under house arrest.  The Earl of Atholl, the ladies' escort, was killed and his head was displayed at the Tower of London (as they usually are during this time).  She was moved around castles and other properties for eight years until in 1314 she was returned to Scotland.

Elizabeth bore Bruce four children, only three of whom survived to adulthood.  Margaret, married the 5th Earl of Sutherland, and had issue.  Matilda, married Thomas Isaac and had issue (two daughters).  John (b.1327) died the same day he was born,  Finally, David, King of Scotland until 1372, married Joan of the Tower, a daughter of Edward II and Isabella of France.

Elizabeth died in October 1327 and is buried in, come on you can guess, Dunfermline.  Bruce died a mere 18 months later.

To tell you the fates of the other Bruce women captured by the English:
Mary Bruce (Robert's sister) was released back to Scotland during an exchange of prisoners after the Battle of Bannockburn where the English were defeated.  She married twice, once to Sir Neil Campbell, and had a son, and secondly to Alexander Fraser, but had no recorded issue.

Christine Bruce (Robert's other sister) was released back to Scotland, no doubt at the same time as the other women.  She married firstly Sir Christopher Seton, who was executed in 1306, and then Sir Andrew Murray.

Marjorie Bruce was released at the same time as Elizabeth, she had been kept at Watton Priory since her capture.  She married Walter Stewart, 6th High Stewart of Scotland, who had distinguished himself.  After David II of Scotland died childless, her son, Robert, became King of Scotland after him, beginning the Stewart dynasty of Scottish, and subsequently English, Kings.

That's it for these unfortunate Bruce women, and Isobel of Mar.  I'll need to think hard this week about what my next segment is going to be about, it's been very Scotland orientated for the last few ones, maybe I'll tackle the illustrious Henry II.

History Sunday: a brief overview of 11th-14thC fashion

I was stumped on what to do for the first History Sunday of 2015.  I'll admit that sewing 19 hand sewn eyelets onto the closure of my kirtle was inspiration (and also why I wanted to write a quick post with minimal research).  It's only in recent years that I've become interested in historic fashion, and there are outfits I've seen that survive or that I like that I add a note in my mind that one day I'd like to make one.  The only historic clothing I have under my belt is one very non-period accurate sideless surcote in cheap purple satin (yes, that's right, satin), my semi-accurate 15th Century Italian gown, and now my 12-14th Century gown based on Waterhouse's The Tempest which is perhaps a week or two from being completed depending on how much time I get this week to sew it.

I'll begin in the obscure-ish 11th century.

Pre-Norman conquest fashion is a bit of a grey area for me as there isn't much artwork or sources that survive from the period.  This was made apparent to me when I was researching for one of my series of short stories set in post-conquest England.  From what I could pick up it seems as though fashion is a very liberal word because there wasn't really any.  Things like buttons, hooks, clips, etc, hadn't come into use then and so the only thing to fit clothes to the form was belts usually placed at the waist.
There was a shift, sark, chemise, there have been a lot of names for them over the centuries and I don't know the 11th century word for it, and that was usually made of linen, homespun for the lower rungs of society.  Over this would be a kirtle, what I'm currently busting my ba**s to make.  Colours were also different during this time, they would be drawn from natural sources, some would be imported and only available to the rich, so none of your cobalt blue or cerise pink.  I have seen a few pictures an sources of a sort of tunic over this, a little shorter than the kirtle, with loose sleeves (but not the ridiculous ones of decades later that the Normans brought over).  As well as materials and fabrics being a sign of status, colours were also, as well as layers.  Personally (maybe even factually) I think this draws from previous centuries where layers meant status because fabric was expensive and the more you clad yourself in, the richer you were.

Now come the Normans and the age of the famous bliaut which has been the inspiration for many a medieval fantasy movie costume (I'm looking at you Lord of the Rings, and Game of Thrones). I'm afraid the bliaut actually edges more into the 12th Century than the 11th, but the Normans wore tight fitting clothes which the Anglo-Saxons didn't (reportedly).

Apparently Norman women just liked excessively long everything because this was also the time when the really long plaited/wrapped hair came into fashion.  As with women all throughout the centuries to keep up with the trend those who couldn't grow their hair the desired length would add ornaments to the ends of the braids to lengthen them, or wear what we would call extensions today.  I really like the series of drawings pictured on the right, I can't remember who drew them but on behalf of all history clothing buffs I would like to thank you.
These bliauts were not as tight fitting as some other dresses would become through the centuries and so women belted it, usually twice wrapped around, like the lovely lady pictured right.

Moving on nearly a century we come to the rather obscure 13th century.  I don't know why it's obscure but people don't seem to make many clothes from this time period, at least not what I could find when I was researching.  What I could conclude was the drawing pictured on the left.
Gone are the wrapped belts.  Sleeves are tight fitting, and over it is what I assume to be the very early ancestor of what would later become the sideless surcote.  Long, bared hair came into fashion (I wonder what the church felt about that) worn with a barbette and fillet (different spellings of those).  I've sometimes seen this referred to as a pie crust which I love.  This will be the early 13th century because by the end of the 1200s the sideless surcote was popular in Europe.

Finally coming to the 14th Century, and the one I hope I know the most about.  The sideless surcote, or fondly nicknamed by the church as "Gates to Hell", was a staple fashion of this century.  It was called by this loving name because it showed off the figure of the wearer, which of course the sexually oppressed church members thought was a "temptation into sin".  They should count small blessings, hair was once more covered during this period by the templars.

Phillipa on the right

In my opinion the church should have been more against buttons which came into use during this period.  After making 24 fabric buttons, 24 handstitched button holes, and soon-to-be 38 eyelets I wonder at the trouble women went through to make tight fitting clothes.
Now that women could be laced, or buttoned, into their garments a whole new medieval version of "on show" came into being.  Buttons were common as the closure of garments but also on the sleeves (and don't I know it) to make them as tight fitting as possible as well.  Over which could be the sideless surcote.
Another fashion in this period was tippets, pictured again on the right.  These are usually pictured as white so probably made of linen and were attached to the sleeves and just kind of..hung there.  I personally don't know the point of these so if anyone could inform me that would be great.

14th century territory would be the Burgundian gowns and the emergence of high/empire waisted garments, but that's beyond this post.  I feel as if I've butchered this whole topic by being so brief but I never have been a very detailed person.  Hope for a better organised History Sunday next week, and to end this post a pretty peacock from an illuminated manuscript that I've been waiting to use, so yay!

History Sunday: William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy (III)

Welcome to the third and final post about William the Conqueror, the first Norman King of England.  So you don't get confused here is part I, and part II.

Before I go into many, many paragraphs about William's battle prowess and his take-over of England I want to talk about his appearance.  We're actually very lucky in that there were a few contemporary descriptions of him, and the only bone of his not to be lost to the ravages of time, his femur, has been examined using modern techniques.  Another side note here the first King of England to actually sit for a portrait was the infamous Richard II who I've briefly mentioned in my John of Gaunt posts.  His reign was during the 14th century, so during our period in the 11th it just wasn't the done thing.  The only images to survive of people during this time, kings and queens usually, are coins, seals or illuminated manuscripts.  I'm actually surprised I haven't had room to mention the Bayeux tapestry in this series of posts because in my mind you can't think about William I without it.  Unfortunately seals, coins and the tapestry aren't likenesses of a historic figure, usually just a generic one.

From contemporary sources it is said that William was well-built, strong, and had a guttural voice.  From his femur his height is estimated to be about 5 feet 10 inches.  According to a source this was tall for the time but I respectfully disagree with this.  It is a common misconception that our ancestors ere smaller than us, but studies that I've read and other sources I've browsed show that there isn't actually much of  difference between the average height in previous centuries and now.  I think women have grown an inch perhaps, and men are close to that.  It is above average height, regardless.  Unfortunately there is no colour descriptions, his eyes or his hair, but I think it's most probable, given his northern European lineage, that he had dark hair and possibly light-ish eyes, I'm not going to venture a colour.

Now the Bayeux tapestry.

No one knows who comissioned this, there's debate about where it was even created.  I think Odo of Bayeux, and William's wife Matilda are the most popular contenders for the comissioners; I've heard somewhere that it may not have been made in Bayeux at all but in England because English women were famed for their needle skill.  Because it was found in Bayeux I think people will naturally assume that Odo of Bayeux, William's half-brother and the Bishop of Bayeux, was the one who ordered it to be made; unfortunately it's a mystery.  To see a video of the Bayeux tapestry click here.

To understand why William wanted or rather stole, the crown of England we first have to look firstly at the validity of his claim, and secondly the precarious situation in England at the time.

Edward the Confessor

William's great-grandfather, Richard I of Normandy, had two children; Richard II and Emma.  Emma married Aethelred the Unready, King of England and had Edward the Confessor.  England at that time was not the England we know today, half of it was England, the other half now known as the Danelaw where the viking settlers remained.  Cnut, the King of the Danelaw, managed to conquer England and this sent Edward the Confessor, and his younger brother, into exile in Normandy.  Things happened in England that I'm not all that knowledgeable on the details but eventually, as we know, Edward claimed back his throne and became King of England.
Edward never married, and is the only English King to become a Saint.  I don't understand why he never married, especially when during later periods so much focus was placed on producing an heir.  Perhaps it was because of his struggles with the Godwin family, the powerful Earls of Wessex, I'll never know.  No one knows what he intended about the succession because there were many candidates.

William claimed that he had been promised the throne of England by Edward himself, and that he was always supposed to be his heir, but there has never been any proof of this found in any sources.  I don't know if it's true or not, but from what we've seen of William's ferocity and ambition I think he saw an opportunity and took it.  Edward the Confessor died sometime in January 1066, and so started the events that would change English history.

Harold Godwinson claiming the throne

There are a lot of details surrounding the Norman invasion, ones I have tried to read during research for a series of short stories of mine set in England in 1072.  I'm not going to recount them here, only in brief.  After Edward's death Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, claimed the throne for himself.  This apparently enraged William who thought he was the rightful heir.

Having fought all of his life to win control over Normandy, William gathered a great force and set sail for England after a delay crossing the channel due to bad weather.

Eventually he landed in Pevensey in September of 1066 with an army and a determination that no man could withstand.  By October of the same year he had defeated Harold at the never to be forgotten Battle of Hastings and claimed England for himself, becoming one of the most powerful men in 11th century Europe.

Oh dear, if only it were that easy.  People usually leave this story at the Battle of Hastings but wars are rarely one during one battle.  This is the thing, it's in the name, the Norman conquest of England.  Anglo-Saxons were the inhabitants of England during this time, they spoke a variant of old english, Normans spoke Norman French.  This would literally be like French people coming over to England now and taking over,; your boss is French, he demands and expects you to be fluent in French as well, he's going to change the way things work, the law, to the French laws.  That's not particularly true in this case, Anglo-Saxon law was well developed, even better than the Norman one, and so for the most part William changed nothing like that.  What he did do was pull down prominent Anglo-Saxon magnates and nobles and replaced them with his Norman followers.  This enraged the populace and for many years following Williams coronation he had to fight remnants of the Anglo-Saxon nobility.

The most pungent of these events, for me, was the harrying of the north.  This was literally destruction on a mass scale, ethnic cleansing if you will.  William marched an army to York and then ravaged everything north of that point, burning villages, towns, killing people; it certainly sent a very loud message to the rest of England but it was brutality on an awful scale.  Although I admire William I loathe him for this; mass punishment for only a few perpetrators is illogical and barbaric.

Unfortunately even up until the end of William's life he faced opposition from the Anglo-Saxons. It didn't help any that he commissioned the Domesday book in 1085/1086 that recorded everything he owned in England, every property, every village, town, home, castle, etc.  Although it was despised at the time it has now become an invaluable resource about the geography of England, and the history of the largest cities and towns.

William died in 1087 probably from a fall from his horse although it's a bit unclear what actually happened.  He wasn't a very respected king because as soon as his last breath had left him everyone scurried away to prepare for the aftermath his death would bring, and when his body was eventually found most of the things in his residence were stolen by servants and his body was lying naked on the floor.  I act shocked about things like these but it also happened to Henry II as well.

Slowly after his death the great empire he had clawed and scraped together disintegrated until roughly 1100 when Henry I managed to regain most of it.  He left England to his son William Rufus, and Normandy to his eldest son, and possibly most disliked, Robert.  Over the remaining decades until Henry I's reign the brothers bickered terribly for control over the other's domain, until eventually the youngest son, Henry, became eventual heir to William's empire.

Queen Elizabeth II, the current monarch, is descended from William, as are many other people around the world.  He brought Norman French, which merged over hundreds of years with Anglo-Saxon to give our modern day English.  Beef is actually a Norman word, cow is Anglo-Saxon.  He brought many things to England, even Scotland, Wales and Ireland, although indirectly.  I personally think the Norman Invasion is a definitive pivotal point in English history, not the most important, but definitely in the top 5.

History Sunday: William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy (I)

This post was spurred by a comment I read on pinterest when I was sifting through the pins.  William I of England was apparently "England's Hitler".......just.......what?  How can you possibly compare the first Norman King of England with a dictator who massacred millions of innocent people and terrorised the entirety of Europe for years?  Yes, the Conqueror wiped out the north of England in what can only be viewed as one of the biggest losses of patience in British history, but he was hardly Hitler.  I have to say I didn't realise I was as big a fan of the Duke until I saw this dreadful over-exaggerated, nonsensical and insensitive comment.  I don't think he was amazing, I'm not in love with him like I am the fictional portrayal of John of Gaunt, but I do admire William, and his wife Matilda of Flanders, greatly.  His life is something taken out of an epic fantasy novel where the hero just has a hard life from the very beginning.  Recently I have also purchased the novel "The conqueror" by Georgette Heyer, and I have read a biography about his wife, Matilda of Flanders; "Matilda" by Tracy Borman is definitely worth a read.

William of Normandy, called "The Bastard" by the understandably disgruntled Anglo-Saxon chronicle, was the illegitimate son of Duke Robert I of Normandy and a relatively obscure woman simply known as Herleva of Falaise.

The Dukes of Normandy traced their ancestry back to a man named in historical records as Rollo, a viking who began attacks on what is now Normandy and was appeased by the King of Western Francia (a part of modern day France) when he was given land to settle in, hence the word Normandy comes from "North men" or "those who came from the north".  William's father, Duke Robert I, remained unmarried in his lifetime but had two illegitimate children by different mothers.  A daughter, Adelaide of Normandy, married three times, and of course William became Duke after the untimely death of his father.  There is a very romantic story concerning Robert and Herleva which has no historical foundation and also which appears through physical evidence to be impossible.
It's said that when the young Duke Robert was at a castle in Falaise he spotted Herleva in the dyeing trenches in the courtyard (her father is thought to have been a tanner) and ordered her brought to him immediately (that's right, the good old days of men picking up women literally with a snap of their fingers).  According to a written source instead of being snuck in through the backdoor she demanded she be led in on horse though the front door, effectively telling everyone that she was his mistress.  I doubt this story because if that were true then surely she would have had more recorded children?  Not to mention surely some pious chronicler of the day would have written more about her?  Let's just say I'm only a romantic when I want to be.

William is reported to have been born in either 1027 or 1028 but because his mother and father were not married, his birth was not official, and so was't contemporaneously recorded.  Little is known about his early childhood as well because he was illegitimate.  It can probably be safely assumed he remained with his mother as would have been customary at the time.

Poor little William's harsh reality begins with his father's death in 1035.  Shortly before Duke Robert I left for Jerusalem as a sort of repentance, he named William, who would have been between  7 and 8, his heir.  The other nobles and important people must have thought this a precaution.  The Duke was 35, not young but not an old man by the time, and perhaps they held hope of him properly marrying on his return from Jerusalem.  It's always interesting to think what would have happened if things had turned out differently, if the Duke had returned from his journey.  William, illegitimate son, may have faded into anonymity, or have been an ally to any legitimate siblings he may have had, or perhaps even an enemy in hindsight of what we know of his temper and will.

As we all know by now this was not to be.  Duke Robert I of Normandy died in Nicaea in 1035 on the return journey of an illness of some kind.  William the Bastard was now Duke of Normandy and still a boy.

I think I can safely say that 11th Century Europe was a dangerous and somewhat barbaric place.  England may have been setttled for a few decades, but Scotland at this time was four separate kingdoms (a post about that later), and certainly France as we know it today was a dream of fools.  Normandy, as I've stated before, was given to Rollo and his descendants by the Kings of West Francia.  France, at this time, was split into Duchys and one Kingdom.  The names are still used today to identify provinces of France; Normandy was flanked by the Duchy of Brittany to the West, the Counts of Anjou to the south and the Kingdom of France to the East.  There were more southern Duchys that belonged to Dukes but I don't like over-complicating things.

It was a volatile mix and the Dukes of Normandy had a tempestuous relationship with their neighbours, and at times their own subordinates.  Wars were a thing of constancy, diplomacy and negotiation seemed to be a secondary tactic seldom used.  On the death of Duke Robert, a child inherited a dangerous Duchy, and of course what happens when a child inherits anything?  Greedy adults put their hands in as well.  What was the easiest way to claim Normandy?  Killing the helpless child and invading with your own armies.

I cannot imagine, however hard I try, what it must have been like for the young William constantly having to escape assassination attempts, observing as his loyal body guards, family members and retainers were all murdered in order to save his life.
When he ascended at first he had the support of a few powerful French men such as his great-uncle the Archbishop Robert of Rouen, and King Henry of France.  Unfortunately with the death of the Archbishop in 1037 there began a cycle of guardians being killed in quick succession.

1047 is the first time that the Duke is recorded fighting for his rights in Normandy.  Three powerful nobles in Normandy rebelled against the Duke, causing him to flee to the French Court and King Henry of France.  They came back together and quashed the rebellion.  This was to be the first of many rigorous battles that the Duke would partake in during his tenure as Duke of Normandy and later King of England.

William's story will continue in part II, out next Sunday.

History Sunday: Dunfermline Abbey

Welcome to my History Sunday blogpost.  As my approximately 4 frequent readers know I am Scottish and frighteningly proud of being so.  Ever since I moved down to England it seems I have become more Scottish; answering questions with aye, and improving my accent.  For this history Sunday I really wanted to write about a Scottish historical figure, not the usual ones like William Wallace or Robert the Bruce, but preferably a queen.  I also thought about doing a history of Scotland one but I would be writing pages until the end of time.  Scotland only became Scotland in the 11th century and even then what we know now as Scotland is different from the first kingdom of Scotland.  I looked at the queens consort list and wanted to write about Saint Maragaret of Scotland; unfortunately she is English, more specifically a daughter of the Earl of Wessex.  When I looked at the list I realised that most of the medieval Queen consorts of Scotland have been English, or French.  There are about three who were Scottish, daughters of Scotland's nobles, but there is sparse information on them that would take barely a paragraph to write up.  It saddened me that I didn't know anything about the historical figures of Scotland; I don't know anything about Scotland during the middle ages and I can name every English monarch from the 11th century to the 17th but no Scottish ones.


To placate the huge disappointment this realisation was I decided on Dunfermline Abbey.  I travel a lot during the summer, going to see this castle and that castle, and on my bucket list for Scotland was the famous Dunfermline Abbey, resting place of the kings, Queens, and royals of Scotland.  I went to this place during the summer of 2014 and as self-appointed ambassador for Scottish heritage sites getting to it is easy; there's a train stop called Dunfermline Town, which you can get to from Edinburgh Haymarket, on a Scotrail line; alight at this station and follow the signposts, or your phone's GPS, until you reach the Abbey which is on the way to the main town centre.  It's probably easier by car.

At this point I'd also like to mention that every picture on this post was taken by yours truly during my visit, no pinterest or google images, I promise.

The Abbey was supposedly originally founded by King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada, or King Malcolm Canmore of Alba (Scotland in Gaelic), and his wife Saint Margaret of Scotland who I mentioned above.  When I went to Edinburgh Castle I was told of Saint Margaret and how she was a very pious woman and this apparently rubbed off on her husband, and it certainly did to her children who were also either cannonised or admired for their piety by chroniclers.  One of their daughters was the wife of King Henry I of England, and their sons became Kings of Alba.
The knave, pictured on the left, is actually the oldest part of the Abbey dating to the 12th Century..  Apparently the Abbey claimed that Saint Margaret was its founder and forged an earlier foundation charter than David I's reign.  King Malcolm and his wife did found something here but it's unclear whether it was the Abbey or just a church.  Dunfermline Abbey became the centre point for the growing cult of Saint Margaret, Scotland's only cannonised royal.  This would have meant a lot of money coming in and so obviously the monks in residence here would have wanted people to keep thinking Saint Margaret founded it therefore forging the charter.

The Benedictine Abbey of the Holy Trinity and Saint Margaret (Dunfermline Abbey) was actually founded by their son King David I in 1128.
Dunfermline Abbey kept standing through the relatively calm years from its founding until the 13th Century when, you guessed it, Edward I stormed his way across the border during the Scottish War of Independence.  He held court at the Abbey in 1303 and then when he left he burned down the buildings.  I don't understand this act.  Edward I was a pious king, Dunfermline was a chartered Abbey with a Saint and numerous kings of Scotland buried in it, did he not fear the wrath of God would come down upon him for effectively destroying a holy place?  Perhaps it was because the kings were buried there that he partially destroyed it.  Nevertheless the Abbey kept standing even after the English were gone.

What I really want at this moment in the post is the guidebook I bought when I was there because it has so much information about this time and about life at the Abbey, but it's at home an I'm in Leicester so apologies.

Let's jump to the Scottish Reformation.  I know nothing about this; I only know about it in England but along those same lines Scotland joined in.  For those who don't know the English Reformation happened around the 1530s and was instigated by Henry VIII of England so he could marry Anne Boleyn.  The Catholic church wouldn't grant a divorce to Henry from his then wife, the poor Katherine of Aragon, and so he broke with Rome, made himself the head of the English church, divorced Katherine in this new religion and married Anne Boleyn, much to her ill fate.  And so began Protestantism.  Because Scotland and England have always been so geographically close, we share a common-ish culture, and our kings married daughters of the kings of England, it was only a matter of time before this new religion came over the border. 

The ruins of Dunfermline Palace

The Scottish Reformation happened in 1560 and banned Mass, etc, and made way for Protestantism.  This would be a very definitive blow against Marie de Guise, effective ruler of Scotland, and her Catholic daughter, the incompetent Mary, Queen of Scots.  Mary was the great-grandaughter of King Henry VII of England through his daughter, Margaret Tudor.  She was shipped off to France when she was very young to marry the Dauphin of France, the heir to the throne, leaving a regent to rule Scotland, and this burden eventually fell to her French mother, Marie de Guise, a catholic.
John Knox was the leader of the Scottish reformation and forced the issue in the wake of Marie de Guises death in early 1560.  Queen Mary didn't arrive in Scotland until 1561.
As all the Abbeys were sacked in England, so they were in Scotland, and one day in March 1560 the Abbey was sacked.
It was rebuilt, in part, in 1570, and reopened for worship in 1821, a huge gap, I know.  It has been extensively restored in the interim between those two periods, but it hadn't been completely destroyed to begin with anyway.  It is now a sight of historical importance as it is, save Iona, the place of the most Scottish Royal burials.  According to the Abbey these people are buried there, although when I was there I must have been looking in the wrong place because I didn't see any grave markers at all.  I do know that they will have been destroyed during the reformation but apparently Saint Margaret and her husband King Malcolm's tomb was restored on the orders of Queen Victoria in the 19th century.
Royals: Malcolm Canmore, Saint Margaret and their sons; Duncan II, Edgar, Alexander I and his wife Sybilla of Normandy, and David I with his wife Maud of Huntingdon.  
Malcolm IV, Alexander III, his wife Margaret of England, and their sons David and Alexander.  Robert the Bruce.
The wives and family members of some kings are also buried there but the full list is on Wikipedia if you're interested.

Dunfermline Palace is also adjoining the Abbey and is a ruin now also; has probably always been there in one form or another and was used to house royal and important guest when they visited the Abbey, it's the only part of the place you have to pay to get into, but it's not steep and the views are excellent.  King Charles I was born in Dunfermline Palace because his mother, Anna of Denmark and wife of King James VI of Scotland, lived in the palace at that time.  When James became King of England after the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 the palace fell into disrepair and ruin, which can still be seen today.

It doesn't take long to go around the Abbey and the Palace, but the inside is breathtaking, as all Abbeys are, and the views are amazing too especially if it's a good day like it was when I visited.  Dunfermline town is also just behind the Abbey so you can go for lunch and some shopping afterwards.  A nice day out overall and it is amazing to know you're walking in the same space as some of the most vibrant of Scotland's kings.

Leicester Castle and St Mary de Castro

Today after many weeks of hectic schedules and procrastination I finally went to see Leicester Castle, or what's left of it.  To be completely honest there isn't really anything to see of the castle, nothing to go inside and marvel at.  I think the only things I actually saw were the Great Hall, or the modern building that's on the place where it would have once been, and a part of the wall.

Leicester castle used to be a royal residence and it was built shortly after the Norman Conquest of England and housed Kings Edward I, Edward II, and of course from my previous three posts about John of Gaunt he and his second wife Constance of Castile both died here.

What's left of the Great Hall

What I did end up waiting 15 minutes to see was St Mary de Castro church which is as old as the castle, if not older.  I like churches, when they're intact from this period at least, because they're so peaceful and although others may disagree there is just something atmospheric inside; I don't know if it's the silence or just the sheer length of time these buildings have been standing observing humanity around them, but just like with castles of any kind, these places have a personality of their own.

I'm not going to lie here, I thought this church was dedicated to an actual Saint Mary from a place called Castro.  There are so many saints in the Roman-Catholic church and since I'm not Catholic I don't know any of them, and they're always appearing in one place or another.  I was promptly corrected by the very helpful signs they have outside.  St Mary de Castro is possibly Norman French or some variation of French since it was built during Norman times and the main language of those with enough money to build it spoke French, translated as St Mary of the Castle.  I felt particularly stupid at this point.  Seeing as the modern French word for castle is chateu and there are profound similarities between Norman French and modern french I just thought Castro was a place.  Apparently from what I read on Wikipedia the extended name, St Mary de Castro, is because Phillippa of Lancaster, who was born in the castle, married the King of Portugal.  No citation on that one though so I'd take it with a pinch of salt, I like my Norman French idea better.

So before I begin; I am doing this from memory from the very helpful guide book that the church hands you when you go in, but you have to put back before you leave, and of course some confirmation from Wikipedia, but I am doing a Masters, my memory is the only thing that got me this far.  I'm also going to apologise for the pictures, I left my camera back in Glasgow thinking I wouldn't need it and so everything here is taken with my phone.

Built in about 1107 by the first Earl of Leicester, Robert de Beaumont, it is thought that there was an earlier church on the site before, an Anglo-Saxon one.  The Normans truly brought stone fortifications and churches to England during the conquest and before that everything was usually built from wood and timber.  Although the Normans did come over and literally take over everything, building castles left, right, and centre, when it came to churches they usually just built in stone the ones that were already there.  Unfortunately there isn't any solid evidence apart from an Anglo-Saxon piece of a tomb lodged in the original wall inside the church, or at least what they think is an Anglo-Saxon tomb.  As with every important church St Mary de Castro's has been extensively built since its founding up until the reformation, even in the Victorian era it was built onto.

It was quite a small church until the 1160s when it was expanded.  I think I read in the booklet that one of the original outside walls is actually inside the church now.  Something I find fascinating now that I know more about historic architecture is how you can sometimes spot the different masonry.  It is very obvious in Kenilworth castle between Coventry and Warwick (I've been there three times before but I'm going again after this semester is finished so I'll probably write a post then).  Kenilworth has a Norman part built in the 12th Century, a 14th Century part built by, you guessed it, John of Gaunt, and finally a 16th Century part built by Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.  The Normans were a practical lot, their castles are very square, rigid and imposing, bulky and solid; they are also known for their round arches.  Pointed arches are a thing gradually introduced in the following centuries and is a tell-tale sign of the time period they were built in.

Inside this church there are what is called a "Sedilla". This is my new word for today.  Pictured on the right these are little niches in the wall created for "important clergyman and their helpers" from what I can remember on the guide.  I never knew that they even existed until I walked into this church.  These three are Norman in construction, why?  The chevrons carved on the round arches are Norman in design and so this is from the original part of the church.

There are a few quirks in the architecture in this place.  There is a carving in between two arches just above the post that separates them that looks like a doll.  It's actually thought to be a likeness of a mason's apprentice and although I didn't take a picture of it, I must admit it does look like a young boy.  There are the more mundane faces peeking out from corners and between arches, probably the people who worked as masons, in the nearby castle, or even those who donated money to the construction of the church itself.
To prove my point about Norman and 13th Century architecture is the picture on the left.  These are another three Sedilla situated in the relatively newer section of the church, just outside the original outer wall.  These have pointed arches, a signature design of later medieval architecture.  For me there is such a difference between these ones and the Norman ones above.  As I said before, the Normans were imposing people, fearsome warriors and practical by nature, and everything they build is a reflection of that practicality, as can be seen by the thick posts that seperate these Sedillas from one another, the stark chevrons that almost seem to point to those sititng inside.  Looking at the ones built later the posts between them are thin, delicate, the pointed arches elegant and decorative.  It's amazing the change in 200 years.

This is the best picture of the original outer wall of the Norman church built in the 1170s.

The two pictures here are the insides of the original church.
The one pictured on the right used to be the back wall, as you can see the Norman architecture in the round archways at the back.  According to the guidebook there was a door in the middle leading, I can't remember where, but it was bricked up during Queen Victoria's reign when there was more building done inside.  I don't know if you can see clearly but in the second archway from the left there is a sort of red brick rectangle near the ground; that's apparently the remnants of the Anglo-Saxon tomb that I spoke about earlier.

The picture to the left is of the knave, if I have it correctly.  I don't know how many books I read about church parts, or how many I go into, I can never remember what the knave, the chancery, the sacristy are; they're just words to me.  On the plus side I know what a chapel is.

This door led to what used to be
the Sacristy

Don't be fooled by these pictures.  The back wall on the right is the only visible stone left from the original Norman architecture.  As you can see from the picture on the left there are pointed archways along the walls, not Norman.

Getting back to the history of the place, there are local legends about the people who had connections with this church, and either fortunately or unfortuantely for Richard III he is of course linked with everything Leicester ever since his body was found in the car park a few years ago.  I'm not going to debate whether he should have been buried at York, to be perfectly honest Leicester needs his burial more than York does to bring in the fans.  According to the guidebook and the city council cultural sign outside, Richard III may have gone to st Mary de Castro's to pray, since people then were still Roman Catholic.

The one I find the most interesting is Geoffrey Chaucer.  The famous 14th century writer linked to the most important royals of the 14th century, it is rumoured that Geoffrey was married to Katherine de roet-Swynford's sister, Phillippa, at this church.  What I will take time here to correct is that the sign outside of the church that says Geoffrey married his second wife here; he only had one wife, and that was Phillippa.

Needless to say, as a royal residence, this little church would have been the place of worship for many important people connected with, or a part of, the royal family of the 11th to 15th centuries.

These pictures to the left and right are the newest pieces of the church, built outside the original walls and then they were all combined at some point.

The picture on the left is the tower, thought to be unsafe until just recently.  You can actually see the space between the tower and the two walls surrounding it.

This would be a great picture if it was in focus but taking pictures with my phone is difficult.  This is the place where you can see a piece of the original Norman outside wall.  You know by now, the chevrons near the top right corner on the round arch.

I would definitely recommend St Mary de Castro's to anyone visiting Leicester.  I went to the Cathedral a few weeks ago and wasn't impressed but I think that's because everything is hidden behind building boards because they're getting ready for the burial of King Richard III next year.  It's been around longer than Leicester Cathedral and definitely has more obvious personality, a typical mashing together of different periods; it feels a bit like a patchwork blanket or quilt.

I lit candles at one of the chapels, just because it has become a tradition for me when I enter a church that does that, ever since I visited Carcassonne in France earlier this year.  I also donated because boy does this little church take a lot to run.  It's only open from 12-2pm on weekdays and of course over the weekend for sermons, and it's about a five minute walk from the city centre, easily found without using GPS on your phone.  If you go please do donate, this is a treasure trove of history and needs to be protected.