Category Archives: History

Life in a medieval house

Posted on by
35

Ever looked at a picture of some centuries-old house–or for that matter, at the real thing in all its hand-built glory–and gotten all misty-eyed, wondering what it was like to live there? Well, thanks to a street of 650-year-old houses and a plan to update them, we can inch a little closer to the answer. The update plan led to a newspaper article. The newspaper article led to my hunch that you might be interested in reading about it.  

The houses are owned by Wells Cathedral and for all their 650 years they’ve been lived in by the singers in the cathedral choir. They’re on what’s believed to be the most complete and continuously occupied medieval street in Europe.

So what’s it like to live there? Cold. According to one resident, “The windows leak £10 notes every time you put the heating on . . . and [enough with the metaphors] the roof leaks actual water.”

Irrelevant photo–except that it was cold enough overnight to leave frost on the fields.

 

The original houses

When they were first built, the roofs wouldn’t have leaked, but the windows surely would have let the cold air in. And the warm air out if any was available. Before chimneys, smoke from the hearth had to find its own way out, taking any available warmth with it, so if an airtight house had been possible it would’ve been a health hazard. 

Even with the leaks, though, indoor life was smoky. That was a problem for anyone who relied on breathing, but if you wanted to preserve your–or someone else’s–voice it would be particularly problematic, which may be why Wells Cathedral was ahead of the curve. Chimneys weren’t common until the 16th or 17th centuries, but chimneys were added to the choristers’ houses in the 15th century, along with water pipes. 

This meant that, cold or not, the houses would’ve been miracles of convenience. So let’s set aside our notions of comfort. They’re not a good match for the era we’re talking about.

The houses originally had two rooms each and were built for single men.

Men? Yes. The choristers were all male, with boys singing the soprano parts. The buildings housed altos, tenors, and basses. I’m not sure where the kids lived. They were small. Maybe someone stacked them in a cupboard when they weren’t in use.

It wasn’t until the Reformation that the cathedral broke through some walls to double the houses’ size and make room for families, and it wasn’t until very recent times that soprano parts have been opened up to girls and (gasp) grown women–and even now (I believe) that’s only true in some choirs. 

If the houses weren’t built for families, does that mean pre-Reformation choristers were expected to be celibate? Apparently so, with the emphasis on expected.

Before the houses were built, the choristers lived in town, and the idea was that corralling them in one place would keep them from worldly temptations, by which the churchly fathers meant sex. It must not have worked (I know: that surprises you), because in 1459 (the houses were first occupied in 1348) the church added a bridge to the cathedral so that on their way to work the singers wouldn’t have to rub shoulders, even briefly, with real people and all the temptations they presented. 

As the current cathedral dean explained it, “They started to get into trouble with what they termed ‘incontinence,’ which meant getting involved with women.” A BBC video tour and explanation, which is worth watching, also mentions problems with singers not showing up on time. Move them all next door to the cathedral, though, and they couldn’t say, “I’d have clocked in an hour ago but traffic was backed up halfway to Bristol.” 

The singers ate in a common dining room. That lets us imagine strong community bonds among people working and eating together and living next to each other. It also lets us–or me anyway–imagine living with the constant presence of some busybody, either another singer or a church official, tracking everyone’s comings and goings, watching for the faintest hint of a sex life. 

 

The current houses

The current residents don’t own or rent the houses, and not all the residents are singers; some are cathedral employees of various other sorts. The houses are what’s called grace and favour houses. They come with the job. 

At some point kitchens were added, but residents say the sense of community remains.

The cathedral has gotten a grant of £4.4 million for repairs but needs to raise an additional £1.9 million to start the project. Which is, in case you haven’t noticed, a lot of money. 

Is it worth it? The cathedral’s dean would argue that it is. “The roofs are failing,” he said. “The guttering is failing. The windows are failing. If we don’t look after this treasure, we’re going to lose it. The stakes are that high.”

A new theory about Stonehenge

Posted on by
46

The recent discovery that one lone piece of Stonehenge was brought some 700 kilometers, either overland or by sea, from northern Scotland has led to a new theory about the monument’s purpose: that it might’ve been built to unite the island’s early farming communities at a time of cultural stress. 

The monument’s stones come from Wiltshire, Wales, and Scotland. And they were set in place some 5,000 years ago, when (I remind you) the art of trucking hadn’t yet been perfected. Or invented. 

Even the most conveniently located stones had to be hauled more than 20 kilometers, so this was already a major commitment. I’d hesitate to move those beasts from my neighbor’s front yard to mine, and we’re within spitting distance of each other. So 20 kilometers? I’ll pass, thanks.

What I’m saying here is that a society committing to haul huge stones over long distances screams for an explanation. I mean, it’s not like the local shops had run out of stone.

Semi-relevant photo: I doubt much in this photo has changed since Stonehenge was built. Except that cameras were invented.

 

Cultural stress

The theory we’re playing with here belongs to archeologist Mike Parker Pearson, and the cultural stress he’s talking about is the arrival of a group of people who were new to Britain and are believed to have introduced metalworking to the island.. They’re known to us as the beaker people, after–um, sorry, we’re sort of going in circles here–the distinctive decorated beakers they made. 

What’s a beaker? In this case, a piece of pottery. The beakers were important enough that they buried them with their dead.

What do we call the earlier inhabitants? Good question and not one I can answer. All I’ve seen them called is Neolithic farmers, which is kind of generic but, sorry, I don’t make the rules, I only make fun of them.

The beaker people migrated into Britain from Europe, and the two cultures would have met, rubbed elbows, and–

Well, we have no idea what they did. Got roaring drunk, told each other lies, and traded songs? Fought? Circled each other warily? Could’ve been any of that, or all of it at different times. They don’t seem to have slaughtered each other, though. Not only have fewer markers of violence been found on skeletons from this period than on skeletons from the Neolithic, there’s also not much evidence of the extensive burning or destruction that would go along with warfare.

This is roughly the time when Stonehenge was built. Or, to be more accurate about it, rebuilt. If you’d lived near Stonehenge for a few thousand years, it would’ve been like having a family member who couldn’t leave the living room furniture in one place and also had to repaint, redecorate, and reconfigure regularly. And convinced everyone to pitch in. In other words, the place was changed significantly over time. What we’re talking about is the version of Stonehenge that we know. Let’s call it Stonehenge 2.0.

Parker Pearson’s theory is that it was built to bring people together–or “assert unity.”

If you want backing for that theory, consider the stone from Scotland. Unlike its more photogenic friends, it lies flat, not because it fell and hasn’t been set upright but because it was meant to be that way. And northeastern Scotland has a number of stone circles where the stones that were set in place that way. So the builders seem to have brought down not just a huge, heavy stone but a tradition.

 

What happened next

As usual when we’re talking about archeology, we don’t know the whole story, but in this case we get a particularly confused picture. The Neolithic farmers tended to cremate their dead, keeping them safe from the nosy archeologists who they knew would eventually come snooping around. That means we don’t know who lived where or when. 

What we do know is that the beaker people ended up largely (and slowly) replacing the original inhabitants, creating a 90% shift in Britain’s collective DNA. 

It’s easy to think that had to do with conquest and slaughter, but (see above) we have no evidence of that. It could’ve had to do with climate change, disease, ecological disaster, or any combination of those. It could also–convincingly, to my mind–be the result of a much smaller population getting absorbed into a larger one.

What can be documented is that for some 500 years the two cultures lived parallel lives while carrying out an extensive cultural exchange. Then, after some 300 to 500 years, they started having significant numbers of children together. 

No, I can’t explain that either. Maybe we’re talking about two unbelievably shy cultures.

“Just before the point where we can infer interbreeding,” according to Dr Selina Brace, “there was a hybrid culture between what came before and what came after. It is almost like it takes them a few hundred years to iron it out, but then they find an accord and develop this set of ideas that incorporates both cultures into something that they can all subscribe to.”

 

What that meant for Stonehenge

The beaker people found a new use for Stonehenge. Or at least, they found one that archeologists can track: it became a place to bury the prestigious dead. Interestingly enough, DNA indicates that the burials were all from the beaker people, not from the culture that build Stonehenge and not from the mixed descendants of both groups. 

How that went down with the builders we’ll never know.

*

I normally post on Fridays and this was supposed to post on December 27. It didn’t. Because I screwed up. What the hell, no one’s paying attention, are they?

Lambert Simnel and the princes in the tower

Posted on by
37

The line between history and farce wears thin in places, and with that bit of pseudo-profundity as a starting point, let’s talk about Lambert Simnel, pretender to England’s throne who was crowned Edward VI of England.

Sort of.

The coronation took place in Ireland, not in England, and you won’t find his name on any list of English monarch. He was ten years old when he was crowned and still had to ask permission if he wanted to stay up last enough to watch his favorite shows. 

The usual irrelevant photo: a Cornish hedge

 

The backstory

Simnel’s claim to the throne–or given his age, the claim made in his name–was that he was one of the princes in the tower. (If you’re about to yell that he never claimed that, stay with me. We’ll get there.) In the meantime, though, remember the princes in the tower? When they were 9 and 12 years old when they were imprisoned by their uncle Richard for the crime of being inconvenient. Or to take Richard’s side of the tale, for their protection.

Not long after that, their uncle became King Richard III.

The older boy had a decent claim to the throne–so decent that he was already King Edward V, although his coronation hadn’t been held yet. So yes, if you’re his uncle and want to be king, a pre-existing king who’s still alive is inconvenient. As is his younger brother, another Richard, who was next in line if Eddie turned up dead.

That makes a good and coherent story, and it’s the one most of us (if we’ve heard about them at all) know. But what happened to the kids isn’t 600% clear, leaving plenty of space for rumor and fantasy to do their work. 

But before I go on, an interruption: Names will be flying around here like bats at sunset. A lot of the actors have the same names, which any fiction writer can tell you is a bad idea. If you can keep them all straight, I admire you. If you can’t, don’t worry. Just keep up as best you can and nod when everyone else does. You’ll be fine. We’re overstocked on Richards and if you want a bargain on the name, this is the time to get out your wallet.

To be fair to Richard-the-Uncle, he didn’t invent locking up and crown-stealing. There was a lot of it going around. We’re dancing at the edge of the Wars of the Roses, when two branches of the Plantagenet family, Lancaster and York, fought over who was going to be the king of the mountain–or more accurately, of England. So an Edward locked up a Henry and took his crown, along with all that it symbolized. The Edward married an Elizabeth, offending a Richard, which I only mention to confuse us all. 

The couple had kids.

Are you still with me?

Henry’s supporters broke him free and re-crowned him. At best, that’s awkward. Once should be enough for any monarch. Edward fled with his brother, the Richard we were talking about earlier–the one who would later be king himself.

The alarm just went off, reminding me that it’s 1471.

The Edward we were talking about a minute ago popped up again, bringing an army with him. He defeated the Henry, killed his son and heir, and locked Henry back into the tower, which was getting a lot of use. 

Henry then proceeded to die, either of melancholy (the official explanation) or because he was murdered (the rumor), or possibly of some undiagnosed disease (an easy guess given this period). Take your pick. What matters is that being dead he could no longer be king, and the same could be said of his son, and that was the end of the Lancastrian line, leaving Edward as king, his son Edward as heir, and his son Richard as the backup band, or as they called it then, the heir presumptive.

See what I mean about the names?

In 1483 Edward (that’s the king) died, having named his brother Richard protector of his heir Edward. Richard-the-Brother took control first of Edward-the-Heir and then of Richard-the-Backup-Band, and had an assortment of people executed, including at least one stray Richard. 

And we still haven’t gotten around to Lambert Simnel.

Before Edward-the-Heir’s coronation could be held, the boys were declared illegitimate (don’t ask; it doesn’t really matter) making Richard-the-Uncle the next in line.

Ta da! I give you King Richard III.

The princes went from luxurious quarters in the tower to prison in the tower. They were seen less and less and then not at all. No one accused Richard of killing them until much later, when the Tudors were in power and Richard-the-Evil-Uncle suited their narrative. He probably did have it done, but it was a long time ago and definitive proof is out of reach, although a few hundred years later the skeletons of two boys of about the right age were found in the tower. 

 

Finally, we get to Lambert Simnel

In 1485 Richard III died in a battle with Henry Tudor, who then became Henry VII. Henry could claim a place on the Lancastrian family tree, although it was too far from the trunk to make him an obvious candidate, and he married a descendant of the Yorkist line, the oldest sister of the princes who were no longer in the tower, which you’d expect to put the Wars of the Roses to rest.

But you know how hard it is for people to let these things go. A young boy popped up, claiming to be the Richard who’d been in the tower and who had, he said, escaped and been on the run. Soon afterward, though, he claimed to be Edward, the Earl of Warwick, who’d also been in the tower. If either claim was true, it made him one of the last surviving males on the York family tree.

Except that  he probably never claimed to be Richard. The Richard story didn’t surface until some hundred years later, and over that length of time people’s memories tends to grow hazy. So all that business about the princes in the tower was irrelevant. I apologize. I was having too much fun to leave them out. What we have to do now is forget Richard. We have too many of them anyway. The boy claimed to be Edward from the start. Let’s focus on that.

Edward had been imprisoned in the tower. He was rumored to have died, but look, here was a boy of about the same age with a striking resemblance to some of the Yorks and a good tale about his escape, not to mention the backing of some important surviving Yorkists. Who was to say it wasn’t him?

These days, pretty much everyone. The agreement is that he was Lambert Simnel. Nothing’s known about his mother, but his father was a carpenter. Or possibly a cobbler. Or–well, something along those lines. Not an aristocrat. He was probably from Oxford and was spotted by a priest, who was yet another Richard, unless his first name was William. His last name was Symonds . Or Simons. Or else Simon. 

Listen, don’t try to keep all this straight. It’ll only end in tears. Let’s just call him the priest. He spotted a resemblance between this handsome body and–oh, hell, whoever the last Yorkist king was. (Edward IV, but it won’t be on the test.) The story goes that the priest groomed the boy to be a stand-in for the lost Yorkist heir, then took him to Ireland–a  Yorkist stronghold. By now the boy’s backers included John de la Pole (if you’re watching Wolf Hall, you’ll have heard the family mentioned); assorted survivors of a failed Yorkist rising in 1846; and Warwick’s aunt, Margaret of York, the dowager duchess of Burgundy. That’s worth underlining, since it’s impossible to keep these people straight: the aunt of the boy Simnel was claiming to be backed his claim to be her nephew. 

They had him crowned in Dublin as Edward VI. The Vth, remember, is the one who’d been imprisoned in the tower and then disappeared. 

Somewhat awkwardly, the Edward he was claiming to be was still alive and Henry had him paraded through the streets of London, but communications being what they were his appearance failed to go viral. Those who noticed didn’t care. Those who cared didn’t notice. 

 

What do you do after an irrelevant coronation?

By now we have Lambert/Edward crowned but without a country to rule, so there was nothing to do but invade England, which is what his puppet-masters did in 1487, with 2,000 Flemish mercenaries paid for and shipped to Ireland by Margaret-the-Aunt; some Irish troops (all I know about them is that they were poorly supplied and took the worst of it); and a few English supporters.

Most of England’s nobles were as interested in joining a rebellion as they were in catching the plague. They didn’t join. And Henry had been gathering troops to invade Ireland, whether to deal with the Simnel’s backers or because the English never could resist invading Ireland I don’t know. I think the former, but either way, it meant he had troops at hand and was able to react quickly. 

The king–you will have already figured this out by now–won. Assorted people were executed. Symonds was spared that because he was a priest but was imprisoned for life. 

And Simnel? He was a kid who’d been used by adults. Henry pardoned him and put him to work, first in his kitchens and later as a falconer. You’ll find at least some historians arguing that Henry never used more cruelty than could be helped. You could also argue–and I’m tempted to–that it might have pleased him to have a pretender to the throne working as a servant in his kitchen, but that’s pure speculation.

Not much is known about Simnel’s later life. He might have married and might have had a son, Richard Simnel (every third boy was name Richard), who became a canon of St. Osyth’s Priory in Essex during the reign of Henry VIII. 

Even Simnel’s name is uncertain. The one we’re using is the one that stuck. 

 

And now for the important stuff

First, Simnel did not give his name to the simnel cake, which predates him. I can’t swear that his name didn’t come from the cake. 

Never heard of simnel cake? That’s a sign you’re not British. It’s–umm, it’s a cake. Unless someone offers you a slice, what more do you need to know? In its earliest incarnation it was a sweet bread. At that stage, cake meant something breadlike involving sugar, butter, fruit, nuts–you know, that sort of thing.  

Second, in the process of invading England the Yorkists–some 8,000 of them–landed on the 50-acre Piel Island.  

They faced no resistance and they didn’t stay long, but they behind a bit of local legend: an unsubstantiated belief that the Kings of Piel are Simnel’s descendants, along with a battered, high-backed wooden chair, which sits in the island’s only pub and is the King of Piel’s throne. Any hapless visitor who sits in it has to buy a drink for everyone who happens to be there at the moment.

The legend has two problems: Simnel was around ten, which is young to have descendants, and the kings aren’t each other’s descendants. The title goes to whoever runs the pub. Still, when each new publican becomes king, he gets a rusty helmet and a saber and a bucket of beer poured over his head.

The Pilgrimage of Grace & Bigod’s Rebellion, or dissolving the monasteries part 3

Posted on by
26

Our most recent slogs took us through Henry VIII’s dissolution of England’s religious houses and then through the Lincolnshire Rising, which was an effort to restore the monasteries. But keep your muddy boots on, because we’re not done yet. We’ve still got the Pilgrimage of Grace to get through.

Need a recap before we head off? Henry VIII took England out of the Catholic Church (kings could do that sort of thing then: I believe this, so you will too) and confiscated the property and income of the monasteries, nunneries, friaries, and etcetaries, which he fed to his ever-hungry treasury. 

He put down a rebellion in Lincolnshire quickly but it led to a larger rising in neighboring Yorkshire, called the Pilgrimage of Grace, and that’s where we’re heading now. It was led by a well-connected lawyer, Robert Aske.  

How well-connected? He was the grandson of a baron and a third cousin to Jane Seymour, who had recently married Henry of the Six Wives. So quite.

Irrelevant photo: Montbretia. It’s invasive as hell, but it’s beautiful.

 

Before we get to what happened, though, let’s talk about why

Religion was the primary spark for the rebellions–people weren’t happy to walk or be chased away from the religion that had shaped their lives–but other elements fed into them as well. One was Thomas Cromwell’s attempts to increase the central government’s control in the North. I’m guessing this was more important to the gentry and aristocracy than to the common people. Folks who have some power aren’t usually happy to see it moved someplace else. 

Cromwell? He was Henry’s minister and (you could at least argue) his brains. He’s also the central character in the BBC’s fantastic series Wolf Hall. I leave it to you to decide which of those things is the most important.

Sorry, where were we? Other elements that fed into the risings. The church and its buildings played an important role in poor and rural communities. This wasn’t just about religion but also charity, jobs, education, and what health care and care for the elderly there was. Closing the monasteries put an end to that. 

Also the harvest had been bad the year before, so food prices had risen, and the Enclosure Movement meant landlords were taking away some peasants’ access to common land and pushing others off the land entirely, leaving them homeless and impoverished. That had started long before Henry and went on long after he was dust, and it had flat out nothing to do with the dissolution of the monasteries, but y’know, when people are feeling the pinch their anger can go in all sorts of directions.

Okay, it had a bit to do with the monasteries: the poor had been able to turn to them for a handout, and no one had a plan in place to fill that gap when they closed.

You can find a bit about the enclosure movement about halfway through this link. I really do need to write a separate post about it.

But before we get all starry eyed about the church and the good it did, remember that it was also a very rich landlord and fierce about dictating what people had to believe and how they could live their private lives–or what we might think of as private, although I’m not convinced they’d have seen it the same way.

For all that, the tone of the rebellion was heavily religious. To quote Robert Aske (remember him? leader of the rebellion?), “And that ye shall not come into our pilgrimage for no particular profit to your self nor to do any displeasure to any private person but by counsel of the commonwealth nor slay nor murder for no envy but in your hearts put away all fear and dread and take afore you the Cross of Christ and in your hearts His faith, the restitution of the church, the suppression of these heretics and their opinions by all the holy contents of this Book.”

 

The Pilgrimage

When the Lincolnshire rising disbanded, the government disbanded its army as well (England didn’t have a standing army until much later on), so when the Pilgrimage of Grace began, Henry’s government was sitting around with its proverbial thumb up its nose, unprepared for Aske to march into York with 30,000 armed–well, let’s say people. By some accounts, it was 30,000 men, but one of the fun side-effects of sexism in the English language is that it’s hard to tell when “men” means men and when “men” means people. In a popular rising, my best guess is that a wide swath of the population would’ve been swept up, including (gasp, horror!) women.

If you don’t keep your eye on those women, they’ll just show up everywhere. 

But let’s not get bogged down there. On October 24, Aske and 30,000 men and possibly not-men marched into York and restored the religious houses that had been closed. 

It’s worth knowing that Aske’s was a higher class of uprising than the Lincolnshire one, by which I mean that it had better connections. Not only was Aske a gentleman, his supporters included a baron and an archbishop, as well as some survivors of the Lincolnshire rising.

The rebels were divided into three hosts, and the one under Aske’s leadership engaged in no looting and no violence, although this wasn’t passive resistance. They did take at least one city. Still, the other hosts weren’t as well disciplined, threatening violence if local lords wouldn’t join them, and I assume making good on their threats although I haven’t been able to dig out any details. 

Rebel numbers continued to grow and rebellions to pop up in new localities. In Cumberland, a rising was led by captains called Charity, Faith, Poverty, and PIty.

Facing them all were the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury, with 12,000 men between them. The rebels now had 40,000, um, humans. Or maybe that’s 8,000 and 30,000. Or 27,000. Numbers were as liquid as spelling back then. Take them as a poetic way of saying a lot or people and a lot more people.

Whatever the head count was, the king’s forces were massively outnumbered, which is why Norfolk negotiated with the rebels, promising safe conduct for two delegates to meet the king, so off the delegates trotted–one rebel and one peacemaker–to Henry’s court, where he told them he knew more about religion than mere commoners but offered them a pardon if they’d hand over ten ringleaders. 

Back north they rode, reporting that Henry had found their demands “dark and obscure,” so rebel representatives hashed out a clarified set of demands at Pontefract Castle, which they’d seized. These were “24 Articles to the King,” also called “The Commons’ Petition.”  

They handed these to Norfolk to pass on to Henry, and Norfolk promised them a general pardon, a parliament that would be held at York within a year, and a reprieve for the abbeys until the new parliament could meet and discuss the matter. 

The rebels were divided over whether to trust Norfolk’s promises. Aske thought they could. Others were wiser, because (either at this point or earlier–I’ve lost track) Norfolk wrote to the king, “I beseche you to take in gode part what so ever promes I shall make unto the rebels for sewerley I shall observe no part thereof.” 

Sewerly? My best guess is that it means surely. Spelling? Liquid, and a thin one at that. 

That division within the rebel ranks was at least to some extent and division between the aristocrats and the commoners, with the aristocrats being more trusting and the commoners more realistic.

In early December, at Aske’s urging, the rebels disbanded and Aske was invited to court for Christmas, where he was well received.

 

Bigod’s Rebellion

Now we move on to Cumberland, where we find Bigod’s Rebellion, led by Sir Francis Bigod and John Hallam, a captain of the 1536 rebellion, neither of whom believed the promises the Pilgrims had been given. 

Unlike the bulk of the rebels, who were Catholic, Bigod was an evangelical–a full-blown Protestant–and all for England leaving the Catholic Church but not for Henry installing himself in the Pope’s place. I’d love to connect that to the rest of the post but I haven’t found a link. Still, it’s interesting and I’m leaving it in.

This new group of rebels planned to capture Hull, Scarborough, and the Duke of Norfolk, who they’d force to mediate with the government. For the sake of clarity, that’s two towns and a duke. I’m doing mix and match here.

But the gentry had survived two rebellions with their hind ends intact and weren’t in a mood to gamble on a third, and although commoners did rise, their risings were sporadic. They eventually converged on Carlisle, where they were defeated in February 1537. 

Norfolk hanged 74 rebels. His orders had been to “cause such dreadful execution to be doon upon a goode number of th’inhabitants of every town, village and hamlet . . . as well by the hanging up of them in trees as by the quartering of them and the setting up of their heddes and quarters….as may be a fearful spectacle.” 

He stopped short of quartering.

At this point, reprisals for the earlier rebellions started.  All told, 216 people were executed, including Aske and assorted lords, knights, abbots, monks, and parish priests. And I’d assume a lot of common folk. One of Henry’s goals was to divide the gentry from the common people, which worked, with the gentry sitting in judgment and commoners (with the exception of the lords, knights, and so forth) being judged.

When Robert Aske was tried, his own brother was on the jury. Only one of the people who were tried was found innocent.

 

So what, if anything, do we learn here?

Like every medieval revolt I’ve read about, the participants in these were noisily loyal to the king. How could they not be? Unless you were backing some alternative kingship candidate and had planted a sword in a stone, opposing the king was more or less unthinkable. No alternative form of government had been imagined. So the goal wasn’t to get rid of the king but to let him know his people’s true situation and get rid of bad people around him (Cromwell was the focus of attention there). If they could do those two things, he’d govern justly. 

But kings were famously jealous of their power and not quick to hand any of it over to a bunch of upstarts. Commoners were threatening because there were so damn many of them and because they were everything the aristocracy looked down on–and feared if they had any sense. On the other hand, aristocrats, being closer to the center of power, were a different sort of threat. The biggest of the feudal lords still saw themselves as ruling under the king while the king saw himself as ruling, period–or if you want to be appropriately British about this, full stop. 

This takes us back almost full circle to the paragraphs about what elements fed into the rebellion, but now we’re looking at it from the other side: it wasn’t just religion that shaped Henry’s response. It was about centralizing power.

Did any of these rebellions stand a chance of success, then? 

It depends on how we define success. They couldn’t have taken power, but then they never imagined they could. That simply wasn’t a goal. They were trying to influence the king, and they did chalk up some successes that are worth noting alongside their more obvious devastating losses. 

  • The collection of the October subsidy–a major grievance–was postponed. 
  • The Statute of Uses was partly negated by a new law.
  • Four of the seven sacraments that the Ten Articles left out were restored, inching the Church of England away from outright Protestantism.
  • A royal proclamation of 1538 promised an onslaught on heresy, by which we should understand outright Protestantism. In practice, I’m not sure it amounted to an onslaught, but it did require the name of the printer and author on any book, which was designed “to auoide and abolish suche englishe bookes as conteine pernicious and detestable errours and heresies.” It put author and printer at greater risk.

In a sideways sort of way, those changes bear out something my parents used to say. They were union organizers back in the day and believed no strike is ever lost. It’s possible that no rebellion is either.

*

If you want a timeline–and I got lost enough moving between one article and the next that I was grateful for this one–take a look here. 

The Lincolnshire Rising, or dissolving the monasteries part 2

Posted on by
30

Last week we slogged through the dissolution of England’s monasteries (and nunneries and friaries and so-fortharies) under Henry VIII, and it might’ve looked, to the casual reader, like everything fell neatly into place for ol’ Henry: the order went out, the courts assessed the money and the goodies and handed them over to the treasury, and the nuns, monks, and friars were sent out into the world to manage as best they could with the pensions they were given. A couple of hundred people were executed for opposing the changes, but in the great scheme of things that hardly counts as major opposition, especially after a few hundred years.

It didn’t all fall into place that easily, though. Henry faced some widespread opposition, starting in October 1536 and centered on Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. If you don’t know your English geography, what matters is that they’re both up north, because the center of English politics has long been in London and more generally in the south. So think of this as happening in No-one-ever-pays-attention-to-usLand. 

 

Irrelevant photo: a geranium

 

The spark

There were two uprisings, and I won’t get as far as the second one this week. Sorry–it’s been that kind of week.

The first started in the town of Louth. Some royal commissioners showed up–those folks who went through a monastery’s belongings and claimed them for the crown–and one made a comment that may have been seen as a threat by the less-educated among the clergy. “Look to your books or there will be consequences.” In addition, new regulations had been introduced that affected the clergy, and taxes that affected secular folk. And people were looking not just at the closing of the religious houses but at the confiscation of  of all that expensive church-ware, some of which had been donated by local families, who therefor had a proprietary feeling about it. 

It’s worth noting that it was only the well-to-do who could donate, say, silver to a church or monastery, but ordinary people participated in grassroots fundraising that might touch up a saint’s statue that was looking weary or do something along those lines, so they too would have a sense of ownership.

As a result, three things happened. the vicar of Louth preached what one website calls an inflammatory sermon; a cobbler, Nicholas Melton, who came to be known as Captain Cobbler, seized a registrar and burned his papers; and a larger group of people held the commissioners hostage at a nunnery.

If you want to know the aim of these early uprisings, look at the documents they destroyed. Literacy was growing but still limited, and committing things to paper was a form of control. Destroy the list of what a monastery owned and it was easy to believe that you might just stop it from being confiscated.

 

But before I go on

I try not to use Wikipedia, because its entries change and it’s subject to the occasional fit of madness before the editors swoop in to correct it, but I couldn’t find articles with any depth to them anywhere else. So I’m leaning on it heavily here. I believe we’re on safe ground. 

Fair enough? Lets go on.

 

The rebellion

Before long, a full-scale revolt had broken out. The rebels came from several towns and converged on the city of Lincoln, where they dragged the diocese’s chancellor from his bed and beat him to death. We can probably take this as an indication that they weren’t in a good mood.

They sent a list of complaints to the king, and these focused on both taxes and religion. They objected to at least one of  Henry’s tax strategies, the Statute of Uses, and they demanded an end to taxation in peacetime. They also objected to the dissolution of the monasteries and to the Church of England’s first statement of its doctrine, the Ten Articles, and demanded that heretics be purged from the government, that the treasures in local churches be protected, and that they have the right to continue worshipping as Catholics. 

Henry dismissed the rebels as “rude and ignorant common people” and their entire county as “one of the most brute and beastly of the whole realm,” so we can safely guess he wasn’t in a good mood either.

Who took part? Some 40,000 people, with the support of the gentry. Their opposition to the Statute of Uses  speaks to the gentry’s involvement, since it involved tax on the inheritance of land, but the number of people up in arms says the rebellion had support from people well below the level of the gentry.  

The protest–or rebellion, or whatever you want to call it–lasted from October 1 to October 4, when the king warned the rebels to go home or face the Duke of Suffolk and however many armed men he’d mobilized by then. By October 14, most of them had left Lincoln.

Why do they date the end of the protest to October 4, then? Sorry, you’re on your own there. I have no idea. What I can tell you is that after the protest broke up, the vicar of Louth and Captain Cobbler were captured and hanged, and over the next 12 days other leaders were executed, including a lawyer and a former monk–although he might not have considered himself former. An MP–that’s a member of parliament; you’re welcome–was not only hanged but also drawn and quartered for his involvement. The Tudors were nothing if not over the top about executing people.

Did that end of the tale? It did not. It led to a larger rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace. But for that, tune in next week.

Dissolving the monasteries

Posted on by
56

If people know anything about Henry VIII, it’s that (in descending order): he had six wives (divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived), he left the Catholic Church in a huff, and (sharp descent here) he dissolved the monasteries. 

Let’s talk about the monasteries.

Dissolving religious houses wasn’t new. For centuries, smaller monasteries either had blinked out of existence on their own or were dissolved so their endowments (their revenue-generating lands and churches) could be redistributed to other religious houses or used to fund colleges. Beyond pissing off some manageable number of people, that wasn’t controversial. What was  new under Henry was the scale. And the purpose. 

Oh, and where the money went.

 

Irrelevant photo: sunset

The why? of it all

First off, we’re using monasteries here as shorthand for not just monasteries but also abbeys, convents, and any religious houses that I’ve forgotten. It’s inaccurate and sexist but it’s simpler. Forgive me. 

If you roll all those religious houses together, you’ll have the wealthiest institution in Tudor England, owning a quarter of the country’s cultivated land and a lot of expensive bling, because devotion to god worked better when it was surrounded by gold and silver and jewels. 

All that bling was not only expensive, it was important. How would anyone know you had wealth if you didn’t show it off? It was what people and institutions did with it.

This being a time when wealth was measured not in bitcoins but in land and expensive objects, it was almost inevitable that Henry would cast his eye in the direction of those monasteries. His government was permanently short of money (blame wars–they’re expensive–and, um, lifestyle issues), and the monasteries not only had all those riches, they were aligned with the pope, who was now Henry’s enemy, what with Henry jumping into that huff and leaving the church, so they were a base of power capable of opposing him.

 

The mechanics of dissolution

In 1536, Henry’s government went after monasteries that had an income of less than £200 a year and fewer than 12 “inmates.” Sorry–not my word. They were probably counting nuns, monks, or friars but not their servants. They were closed down and their buildings, land, and money went to the crown. 

To give a sense of what £200 was worth, you could’ve bought 42 horses or 160 cows with it. It was the daily wage of 6,666 skilled artisans–or of one working for a long damn time. 

Then in 1539, the government moved against the larger monasteries, and by the next year they were being closed at the rate of 50 a month. The land and buildings of both large and small houses were sold and the bling–the movable assets–auctioned off.

In the first stage of dissolution, the confiscated buildings weren’t badly damaged, although lead was stripped from the roofs (it was valuable stuff), glazing was removed, and bells melted down. The plan was to sell or use the buildings themselves, and some of the buildings were repurposed for grand homes. You’ll still find stately homes called SomethingOrOther Abbey, and yes, they were once abbeys. 

In the later stages of the dissolution, orders went out to pull down the buildings: “Pull down to the ground all the walls of the churches, steeples, cloisters, fraters [refectories], dorters [dormitories], chapter houses.” This wasn’t cheap. The cost of tearing down Furness Abbey was 10% of the money raised by selling its property. 

Many of the buildings were partially pulled down and left to decay. Today, they make scenic ruins and people pay admission to wander through, take selfies, brush up against a bit of history, and then buy tea and sandwiches. 

 

The courts

All this confiscating and selling created a major administrative headache, and in 1535 the Court of Augmentation was set up to sort through the monasteries’ assets and income. Then in 1540, the Court of First Fruits and Tenths took charge of money the monasteries had once sent to Rome, because the end of the monasteries didn’t mean the end of the payments people owed them. 

What were first fruits, though? The first year’s profits that the new holder of a benefice owed the church. (A benefice was a church office that brought revenue to the person who held it.)  And the tenths? The 10% of each year’s income that the benefice’s holder owed the church each year until forever. All that had to be assessed, catalogued, dealt with.

The courts were part of Thomas Cromwell’s work of replacing the king’s medieval household administration with something we’d recognize today as a civil service. 

The treasury came out of the dissolution some £1.5 million richer. That would’ve been lifetimes of work by those skilled artisans we were talking about.

 

The monks, nuns, and servants

That accounts for the income, the bling, and the land and buildings, but it leaves the people who made their lives in the monasteries unaccounted for. So let’s do numbers. Some people love numbers. 

Roughly 14,000 monks, nuns, and friars were de-monked, de-nunned, and de-friared when the monasteries closed. If they cooperated, they received pensions. If they didn’t–well, some 200 people were executed for opposing the dissolution. 

I haven’t found a number for the servants who were now out of jobs and I don’t know if they were counted.

Monks and canons typically received a pension of around £5 or £6 a year, which was roughly what a chaplain was paid.

What’s a canon? I had to look it up. “A member of the chapter of (for the most part) priests, headed by a dean, which is responsible for administering a cathedral or certain other churches.”

Did you really need to know that?

The heads of religious houses did better, and as in everything else at this time, connections mattered. Family mattered. One abbot who was close to Cromwell received £100 a year–roughly the income of a rich country gentleman. Cooperation also mattered. Those who played along might be allowed to wander out into the secular world in possession of some of the house’s bling or cattle.  

Nuns–you won’t be surprised to learn–got less, sometimes no more than £1 a year. Even after the convents closed, they weren’t allowed to marry, although some did anyway. But many found no choice but to return to their families. Convents had long been refuges both for women who didn’t want to marry and dumping grounds for the unmarriageable daughters of the gentry and middle-ranking families. Both groups of women were likely to be seen as  burdens if they returned home. 

As for the servants, there would’ve been more of them than of monks or nuns. Sawley Abbey’s 18 monks had 42 servants–farmhands, plumbers, cooks, kitchen boys, carpenters, grooms, masons, laborers, and washerwomen.  

A monastery would also have had a steward–far higher up the scale than a washerwoman but still a servant–who managed legal relationships and relations with the outside world. 

With the closing of the monasteries, the servants who lived there, as many did, would have been homeless in addition to unemployed. Some dissolution commissioners made provision for them–which implies that some didn’t. At Furness Abbey, the servants were owed a good bit of back pay, and the commissioner made sure this was paid, although they got nothing, as far as I’ve read, beyond that. 

Almsmen living at the abbey received a cash settlement. 

 

Gain and Losses

Although the politically well connected and the backers of Henry’s reforms were in the best position to profit from the sales of land and buildings, traditional Catholics also bought up property. This created a group of wealthy families whose interests now lay with keeping the Church of England in place. Even when Mary took the throne and restored the Catholic Church, she couldn’t re-establish the monasteries. Whether you count that as a gain, a loss, or simply clever politics depends on your point of view.

The closing of the monasteries created some concrete problems that no one seems to have planned for. The monasteries had been home to massive libraries–collections of illuminated manuscripts. But the printed book was replacing the hand-copied one, so who needed those old things? Some were saved but many were destroyed.

Monastic and convent schools had educated boys and girls (separately of course, you barbarian), and the church had offered one of the very few ways a bright boy could climb out of poverty. With the closing of the monasteries, the schools closed.

The church also ran hospitals, and many of these were attached to monasteries. Those were lost. 

Let’s not let the word hospital fool us, though. It shares a root with hospitality, and not all hospitals dealt with illness. In England and Wales, 47% housed the poor and elderly. Another 12% housed poor travelers and pilgrims and 10% cared for the non-contagious sick. The rest housed lepers.

Monasteries also gave alms in the form of money or food to the poor. Not enough to keep them from being poor, mind you, and not enough to make a dent in their own riches, but when people are hungry–and this was a society full of people living on the edge–food is food.

No one made plans to replace any of this.

 

Nursery rhymes

According to legend, the nursery rhyme about Little Jack Horner come from this time. 

Little Jack Horner
Sat in the corner,
Eating a Christmas pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said ‘What a good boy am I!

Thomas Horner was (allegedly) steward to Richard Whiting, the last abbot of Glastonbury, and before the abbey was destroyed Whiting was supposed to have sent Horner to London with a huge Christmas pie with the deeds to a dozen manors hidden inside. Because if the Court of Augmentations couldn’t find them, they couldn’t claim them. Possession is nine-tenths and all that.

Again supposedly, Horner opened the pie somewhere along the way and stole the deeds to the manor of Mells, in Somerset, which had lead mines, making the plum in the rhyme a play on the Latin plumbum, meaning lead. 

A Thomas Horner did become the owner of the manor, but that doesn’t prove he found it in a pie and doesn’t explain why he’s called Jack.

Exporting segregation: Black G.I.s in Britain during World War II

Posted on by
31

The best-known stories about American G.I.s in Britain during World War II involve white soldiers, who the British liked to say were over overpaid, overfed, oversexed, and over here. Not long ago, I met someone who quoted that to explain why he didn’t know what part of the US his American grandfather came from. 

But there’s another story about U.S. soldiers in Britain: over the course of 3 years, some 240,000 Black U.S. soldiers passed through Britain and their situation was complicated, not because Britons didn’t welcome them but because they did. 

Screamingly irrelevant photo: The river Something or Other, flowing through Canterbury’s city center

 

The segregated army

Let’s back up. Hang around here long enough and you’ll get used to that. The US Army was segregated until 1948, three years after the end of World War II, so during the period we’re talking about Black and white soldiers served in separate units. They had separate barracks or camps along with separate hospitals or wards, blood banks (yes, seriously), medical staff, and recreational facilities. 

The US military didn’t consider Black soldiers fit for combat, so they were limited to support roles. They drove, cooked, cleaned, built roads and buildings and air bases, unloaded supplies, dug ditches, and worked as mechanics, generally under white officers. The few Black soldiers who did become officers could only command Black troops, and Black soldiers faced all the harassment you’d expect–and depending on how low you set your expectations, probably more.

In case anyone needs it, here’s the ten-second summary of US segregation: America’s southern states were segregated by law. Blacks and whites had separate drinking fountains, separate schools, and separate pretty much everything else. And whatever was for white people got more money–a lot more money–than what was for Black people. Those laws were enforced not just by the police and the courts but by terror. To cross the line that separated Black and white was to risk your life–at least if you were Black. This is what the federal government was carrying over into the armed forces. 

But segregation wasn’t just about separating the two groups, it was about enforcing inequality. By way of example, unlike white soldiers, Black soldiers weren’t allowed to marry women they formed relationships with overseas, which added to the number of children abandoned by their G.I. fathers.

Now we get to the contradictory–which is to say the interesting–part: for all that Britain brought segregation to its colonies, it had no color line at home. That doesn’t mean it was free of racism. When the US first proposed bringing over Black troops, Anthony Eden, the secretary of state, objected on the grounds that Black people weren’t suited to the climate. 

Britain had some 8,000 identifiably Black citizens at the time, and they seemed to survive the climate well enough, but never mind that. Sometimes you grab the first argument that flits past, and after that there’s nothing to do but keep a straight face and repeat it. 

 

A quick interruption

What does identifiably Black mean? Over the course of several centuries, a lot of Britons with Black ancestors were absorbed into an overwhelmingly white population and no longer counted as Black. Many of them wouldn’t have known of any reason not to count themselves as white. So we’re talking about whoever was visible. 

By way of contrast, in the US at the time, the one-drop rule held that if you had any Black ancestry at all (“one drop of blood”)–and of course if anyone knew about it–you were considered Black. 

 

The two systems collide

With that out of the way, let’s go back to the British government: it was a reluctant host. James Grigg, the secretary of state for war, wrote in a memorandum labeled “to be kept under lock and key, ”that “the average white American soldier does not understand the normal British attitude to the colour problem, and his respect for this country may suffer if he sees British troops, British Women’s Services and the population generally drawing no distinction between white and coloured. . . . 

“This difference of attitude might clearly give rise to friction. Moreover, the coloured troops themselves probably expect to be treated in this country as in the United States, and a markedly different treatment might well cause political difficulties in America at the end of the war.”

Why was that kept under lock and key? Probably because Britain was in no position to object to an American plan. It depended on the US to fund the war effort. So while Grigg chewed on his fingernails, the US brought its soldiers over, and it brought US-style segregation with them.

Where Britain did manage to draw the line was at enforcing segregation: that would be up to the US. On occasion, that left Britain trying to keep segregation from being imposed on Black soldiers from British colonies.

Isn’t it interesting how something starts out looking like it’ll be clear but turns out to be murky as hell?

Black American soldiers were generally welcomed by the local population, most of whom had never met a Black person before. As George Orwell put it, “The general consensus of opinion appears to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”

Orwell may have been making a political point there, but people with no name recognition at all are quoted (anonymously) saying roughly the same thing. A West Country farmer said, “I love the Americans, but I don’t like those white ones that they have brought with them.” And when white G.I.s gave the landlady of a pub grief for serving Black soldiers, she’s reported to have told them,”Their money is as good as yours and we prefer their company.”

Some businesses, however, did refuse Black customers for fear of losing white soldiers’ business. So the picture wasn’t unmixed. 

Before I go on, let’s be clear: Britain wasn’t free of racism. A cricketer from the West Indies who lived in Britain in the 1920s said that “personal slights” were “an unpleasant part of life in Britain for anyone of my colour.” At the end of World War I, a race riot kicked off over fears that demobilized troops from the empire would take white Britons’ jobs. And at the end of World War II, when Black people from the West Indies moved to Britain in large numbers and looked for places to live, they found signs saying, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs.”

But during the war, the British generally welcomed Black soldiers, and the raw racial hostility that white troops brought with them seems only to have made that welcome more pronounced. 

An element of nationalism probably fed into that as well. Britons didn’t want to be pushed around by the US–the rising imperial power.

 

So what happened?

Not every white G.I. in Britain was a racist, but those who were were outraged by what they found, which turned everything they’d taken for granted on its head. Not only were Blacks occupying spaces they expected to be exclusively white, they were dancing with white women and going out with white women. For a segregationist, this was the ultimate horror–the thing segregation was supposed to defend against: a Black man with a white woman.  

No, seriously. Within living memory–mine, since you ask–the question that was supposed to demolish any white support for the civil rights of Black Americans was, “Yeah, but would you want your sister to go out with one?”

Gasp, wheeze, end of argument. How could anyone accept that?

If the situation in Britain was a pressure cooker, it blew that little valve on the top more than once, with violence sometimes being set off by white soldiers, sometimes by military police, and at least once by Black soldiers marching into the nearby town that was off limits to them but not to white soldiers. 

In Bamber Bridge, Lancashire, white troops tried to establish a color line in the village and locals responded by putting “Black Troops Only” signs outside the village’s three pubs. 

Maybe you have to be as old as I am, as well as from the US, to be tickled by the quiet genius of local people saying, Fine, you want a color line? We’ll draw it here and you’re on the wrong side. 

In June 1943, still in Bamber Bridge, an argument started between MPs and a Black serviceman outside a pub. Local people and British servicewomen took the side of the soldier. Somebody brandished a bottle. An MP (that stands for military police, by the way, not member of parliament) brandished his gun. The MPs drove away, gathered reinforcements, and later that night ambushed the Black soldiers. A melee broke out, fought mostly with billy clubs, bottles, and cobblestones, but one Black soldier was shot, after which 200 Black soldiers gathered and confronted their white officers. The unit’s only Black officer had calmed the situation until a dozen MPs showed up with jeeps and a machine gun, at which point the Black soldiers seized most of the available arms and fought the MPs for several hours. 

The incident ended with one man dead, several injured, and a hefty number of Black soldiers (32, I believe) convicted of everything from ignoring orders to mutiny. Still, Historic UK counts it as a “turning point in handling racial tension within the military.” Specifically, “A subsequent overhaul led to the removal of racist officers from the trucking units and the introduction of black officers into the MP units.” 

There were also violent confrontations in Launceston, Cornwall; Tiger Bay, Wales; and Leicester. You can ask Lord Google for details if you want them. In the meantime, we’ll jump to what happened at Combe Down, Somerset, where Leroy Henry, a Black soldier, was accused of rape, found guilty by a court martial, and sentenced to death 

That might’ve been the end of it, but a local baker was shocked by the lack of evidence against the man and started a petition, which 33,000 people from the area signed. A national newspaper picked up the story. This was just before D-Day and southern England was packed with troops. It wasn’t a good time for a scandal, and General Eisenhower overturned the conviction. Leroy Henry returned to his unit–and survived the war.

 

So was James Grigg right?

You’ve forgotten James Grigg already, haven’t you? The secretary of state for war who said (among other things) that seeing a country without a color bar might cause political trouble when Black soldiers returned home. Well, around a third of the leaders of the US Civil Right Movement of the 1950s and ‘60s were World War II veterans. That doesn’t say they all spent time in Britain and it doesn’t say they needed to stand on British soil to imagine a life free of segregation. But the experience of Black soldiers in Britain surely added a few drops of water to the rivers that–help! my metaphor’s in danger of going wrong here–rose so powerfully in the postwar US, washing away segregation’s legal structure. 

That flood didn’t solve all our problems, as you will have noticed if you live there or follow US politics at all, but it did move history forward by an inch or three.

*

I’ve relied heavily here on a BBC TV documentary, Churchill: Britain’s Secret Apartheid. If you can find it, it’s well worth your time.

Church and state in medieval England: Thomas Becket and Henry II

Posted on by
26

Medieval England had two mutually dependent centers of power, the church and the state. The state relied on the church for legitimacy. It was church ritual that turned a proto-king into a real one–someone who people believed had a god-given right to rule. And the church? It held land and riches, it had a near-monopoly on education and literacy, and people believed in it. All that gave it massive political clout. But it relied on the state’s network of laws and law enforcement.

So, two mutually dependent centers of power, and predictably, they didn’t always line up neatly. Take the tale of Thomas Becket and Henry II.

A rare relevant photo: the pulpit in Canterbury Cathedral

 

First, let’s get the name straight

When I first heard of Becket, he was called Thomas a Becket, which turns out not to have been his name. When he was born, he was called Thomas Beket. Spelling was a liquid back then. Somewhere along the line, he picked up a stray C. It looked good and he kept it. As Archbishop of Canterbury, he was known as Thomas of Canterbury. As a saint, he was (and I guess is) called Saint Thomas.

Then came Henry VIII, Anne Bolyn, England’s break with the Catholic Church, and all that stuff, and since Becket had thrown his weight behind the church and against a king when they came into conflict, he went decisively out of fashion. So in 1538, Cromwell (Henry’s brains as well as his tough guy) decreed that Saint T was to be known as plain old Bishop Becket.

In 1596, another Thomas, Thomas Nashe, a satirist and poet, added the a to Becket’s name.

Why’d he do that? It slotted in nicely with names in the Robin Hood legend (think Alan a Dale), which was popular right about then, and it made him sound like some rural bumpkin. In other words, this was the Anglicans making fun of the Catholics. 

The name stuck and by the 18th century the nifty rhythm of the a Becket form was clattering around after Tom Beket like a cluster of tin cans tied to his belt. Because regardless of its original intent, it does sound nice.

These days, people seem to have gone back to Thomas Becket, and in the interest of high-minded neutrality we’ll call him that. 

 

Henry and Becket

Becket was born in 1118 to Norman parents, and this was soon enough after the Norman invasion for that to place him among the elite. Ah, but his parents were merchants, so he was a long step below the elite of the elite, the aristocracy. He got an education (not a given back then), and after a detour as a city clerk and accountant went to work for Archbishop Theobald. 

Before we go on, though, a warning: you’ll want to keep your archbishops separate from your archdeacons in this paragraph, because it has an excess of arches. Becket pleased Theobald (the archbishop) well enough that he was appointed archdeacon of Canterbury. That’s not as good as being an archbishop, but even so it brought him both power and money. Three months after that, he became Henry’s chancellor and confidant. That was in addition to being archdeacon, so Becket now held two posts, both of them important. 

Becket was, according to the accounts I’ve read, skillful and energetic and gifted at getting people to like him, although he does seem to have neglected the less glamorous work of archdeacon in favor of his job as chancellor, best buddy, and right arm to the king. 

He showed himself to be the king’s man when the church and state came into conflict over something called scutage, which was part of that impenetrable knot of relationships that defined feudalism. Basically, it was money that the holder of a fief could pay instead of sending knights to fight for the king. The church held fiefs that had to produce knights or money, and Becket, taking the king’s side, charged the church a high rate.  

To make this more sensitive, this was a period when the church was pushing for greater power relative to kings, who’d previously had considerable control over the church. This is called the Gregorian Reform, and I never heard of it either. Henry was holding out against the changes, claiming what he considered his ancestral rights. And Becket backed him. He was very much the king’s man.

 

Then it all went sour

When Theobald died, what could make more sense than for Henry to make Becket the new archbishop? He’d be the king’s man inside the church.

Henry tried to persuade Becket to accept the post and Becket tried to persuade the king hat the story wouldn’t end well if he did. Becket lost the argument and was duly made archbishop, at which point he stopped being the king’s man and became the church’s, taking its side in conflicts with the king–first in a disagreement over tax, later over the issue of whether the church or the state would try clerics who were accused of crimes. 

In Europe–and in England before the Norman conquest–the church tried clerics, and their punishments were generally lighter than lay people faced. No death penalty, no mutilation. 

Becket’s argument was that the church already punished clerics and they shouldn’t be punished twice for the same crime. Henry’s was that clerical crime was rife and encouraged by church protection. Basically, though, this was about power.

The conflict came to a head in 1164, with the king claiming several of what he considered his traditional rights. He forbade the excommunication of royal officials and any appeals to Rome. He claimed the revenues of vacant church sees the right to influence the election of bishops.

Becket, having initially accepted this, then registered his disagreement and appealed to the pope, who–no surprise here–took the church’s side. 

Henry’s next move was to summon Becket to a trial. By a state court. And guess whose side it would be on. Becket, being no fool, fled to France, where he lived for six years. By way of spitting in Becket’s and the pope’s collective eye, Henry had the archbishop of York crown his son crowned as co-king, although the archbishop of Canterbury traditionally had the right to crown the king. 

Becket responded by excommunicating a bunch of people.

England, by this point, had more or less withdrawn from obedience to the pope, and in case this isn’t confusing enough I should mention that in addition to a pope, the church had an antipope–a kind of spare pope in case the original went flat. 

Sorry–I thought that was funny but it’s not accurate. Both pope and antipope claimed to be the one true pope. Let’s say it was a messy period in church politics and leave it there.

The pope backed Becket’s excommunications, and excommunication was serious stuff in the middle ages. It could cut a person or an entire nation off from church functions. Since we’re talking about a nation, it meant churches could be closed, people refused the sacraments, and churchyards closed to burials. It meant a country full of people who couldn’t take the sacraments, so they’d believe they were being denied their trip to heaven when they died. This is just the kind of thing that can trigger rebellions. 

So the king allowed Becket to return to Canterbury, but beyond that nothing was settled, and Becket excommunicated a few more people, including the archbishop of York, and refused to re-communicate the ones he’d already excommunicated. 

Henry had what’s known in high academic circles as a runnin’ hissy fit and said– 

Well, he said something. According to the Britannica, “He berated his household for being a pack of ‘miserable curs and traitors’ who stood idly by while a ‘low-born priest’ treated their king with contempt.” But according to Edward Grim, who was an eyewitness to Becket’s killing although not to the hissy fit, Henry said, “What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!”  

We’re not done yet, though. According to Peter O’Toole in the 1964 movie Becket, he said, “Will no one rid me of the meddlesome priest?” Or maybe that’s “turbulent priest.” Go watch the film yourself if you want to get it right. It’s clearly the authoritative version, but I can’t be bothered. 

Whatever Henry said, four knights trotted off to Canterbury, where they killed the archbishop. 

 

Becket’s afterlife

No, not that kind of afterlife. We’re talking about the verifiable kind:

Within days, people were making pilgrimages to Becket’s tomb in Canterbury cathedral–or so says the Britannica, although I have trouble believing anyone constructed a tomb that quickly. Let’s not fuss over details, though. Miracles were quickly attributed to him. Pilgrims came. 

Henry (wisely) swore he never wanted Becket killed, and the next year he–that’s Henry, not Becket–showed up in Canterbury, allowed himself to be whipped by bishops while he prayed for forgiveness, and was duly absolved. His decision to do that might’ve had something to do with a revolt led by his sons and backed by France, which he claimed was a result of Becket’s killing.

And the knights who did the deed? They were excommunicated but asked for forgiveness and were sent to fight in the Crusades for fourteen years. 

Three years after Becket’s death, he was made a saint and people believed that the spot where his blood was spilled would heal the sick, and Canterbury remained an important goal for pilgrims until Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and had Becket’s tomb taken down, his bones burned, and his name erased from the service books.

A service book, in case this is all as foreign to you as it is to me, is “a book published by the authority of a church body that contains the text and directions for the liturgy of its official religious services.”

For all that, he wasn’t fully erased. These days, the cathedral burns a candle where Becket’s tomb once stood, and his name is engraved on the floor to mark the spot where he was killed.

Britain’s blue plaques–or how to make history snooze-worthy

Posted on by
28

Britain isn’t short on history, and it isn’t short of the impulse to celebrate it. Or at least some of it. The part of it that fits the dominant narrative, whatever that is at the moment. One of the least effective ways it’s found is the blue plaque scheme, which attaches–yes, you guessed it–blue plaques to walls commemorating people you may or may not have heard of. 

To learn more about this fascinating project, let’s quote Historic England, one of the assorted organizations that run the scheme: It “celebrates people from all walks of life who have made a significant contribution to human welfare or happiness; and/or have made an exceptional impact in their field, community or on society at large.”  

English Heritage, on the other hand, which runs the scheme in London, has it celebrating “the links between notable figures of the past and the buildings in which they lived and worked.”

We won’t get in between those two explanations. They can settle their differences in whatever way they find fitting.

Irrelevant photo: The Bude Canal on a (rare) sunny day. Apologies for the photo quality. It seems to be a WordPress problem that’s cropped up in the last few weeks.

The scheme

In British, scheme doesn’t imply anything scheming or underhanded. A scheme’s a plan–something systematic, and this particular scheme has been around for a while. The first plaques were put up in 1867. Since then, the London part of it has been handed from one organization to another. Unless you work for one of them, I’m reasonably sure you don’t care which they are. The national scheme is run by Historic England. But smaller cities don’t have to feel left out: they can find some local group to put up their own blue plaques.

The plaques say things like, “________ lived here from _______ to ___________.” Some of them say what the person did. A few don’t–you’re expected to know. Either way, the focus is on the here-ness of it all. It’s a low-key way of saying, Listen, dunderhead, you’re on a historic site. Be impressed.

Or something along those lines. Maybe they’re really saying, We’re so rich in history that all we need to do is put up a small blue plaque to commemorate it. Eat your heart out, foreigners. 

It’s all in the interpretation, isn’t it?

I’ve seen a Charles Dickens-related plaque that commemorates a house that used to stand someplace near where the plaque now is. It struck me as a bit forlorn.

Not all the plaques commemorate English or British figures. One of the earliest commemorates Napoleon III, who lived in exile in London, where he slotted himself neatly into high society. 

The people they commemorate are also not all famous. Commemoratees include a theatrical wigmaker, the woman who taught ju-jitsu to the Suffragettes, a bare-knuckle boxing champ, a homing pigeon, and Dolly the Sheep–the first animal to be born by cloning.

 

Unofficial plaques

But nobody gets to set a limit on blue plaques, and it’s possible–even legal–to put up unofficial ones. 

In Norfolk, the Common Lot theatre group discovered that only 25 of the city’s 300 blue plaques commemorated women and set out to remedy the imbalance, commemorating rebel women of Norwich. Their women they commemorate include:  

  • The 16-year-old Emma de Gaudar, who’s said to have held Norwich Castle against a siege by William the Conqueror
  • The butterfly collector Margaret Fountaine
  • Suffragette Mabel Clarkson, who became a lord mayor of Norwich and a city councillor before women achieved the vote
  • Dorothy Jewson, the first female Labour MP, who attended Norwich High School for Girls
  • Women thrown out of a Quaker meeting house for being profane and opinionated for talking about women’s rights
  • And the former location of a ducking stool for women accused of witchcraft

In Hull, Alternative Heritage set up a plaque saying, “Our brand of mavericks and creatives decided to celebrate Hull’s history, whether factual or fictitious.”

I could get to like these people.

They go on to say, “Official English Heritage plaques can only be commissioned for a proposed recipient 20 years after their death, through strict criteria. But what about the living legends and stories that make our city special today? Here at Drunk Animal Creative Studio, we designed a series of our own plaques, fittingly titled ‘Alternative Heritage.’

“Our plaques celebrate our history, from Hull’s charismatic folk to lore spread in playgrounds. Whether factual or fictitious, the contents of the plaques come straight from the heart of Hull.”

So what have they put up? One plaque says, “Goodbye, 2020. You won’t be missed.” Another says, “On this spot, 1918. Alf hugged his wife for the first time in four years. He was lucky – thousands across the country never got to hug their loved ones again.”

Their site includes a map of plaques around the city and a form you can use to propose a plaque.

 

The Liz Truss plaque

The reason I got started on blue plaques is that someone’s put up a blue plaque outside the shop where the lettuce that outlasted Liz Truss was bought.

What am I talking about? Liz Truss is Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister. In less than two months, during 2022, her bare-knuckle budget proposed doing everything Conservative politicians had talked about but hesitated to do in any unrestrained way: slash taxes and spending without worrying about how the numbers would add up. In next to no time at all, the country was teetering on the brink of recession. The pound tanked. The markets had multiple nervous breakdowns. The cost of government borrowing shot up. Mortgage deals fell through. People who ran pension funds–or who had pensions in those funds–came unglued.

Headline writers, on the other hand, had a field day. 

Truss’s popularity fell so low they had to dig trenches in the newsroom floor. Then some genius at one of the newspapers bought a head of lettuce, dropped a blond wig on it, and trained a live cam at it, asking who’d last longer, Liz or Lettuce.

The lettuce, famously, won. And is now commemorated with a highly unofficial blue plaque of its very own. Truss, meanwhile, is promoting a book about how to save the West. The rest of the world, presumably, isn’t worth bothering with.

How well is it selling? In its first week (I haven’t found more recent data), it was 70 on the bestseller list, behind an air fryer cookbook and RuPaul’s memoir, with 2,228 copies sold. Given the name recognition you get as a former prime minister, that’s not great, although I’ll admit it leaves my novels in the dust. On the other hand, I’m not followed by pictures of lettuce the way she is.

Skara Brae and neolithic Britain

Posted on by
32

Every last one of us was born too late to visit neolithic Britain. Sorry. Most of us wouldn’t handle it well anyway. But we can get a surprising glimpse of late stone age life from the island of Orkney, off the northeast coast of Scotland. 

These days, Orkney’s located almost exactly in the middle of nowhere, at least if by nowhere you mean a lot of water, but back then it seems to have been the center of a civilization, if for no other reason than that it was a midway point between northern Europe and Britain. For that, being in the middle of a lot of water is useful.

Not much is known about stone-age boats, but we can pretty well guess that traveling in one made a stop on a long voyage welcome. The break would’ve let people indulge in a neolithic cultural exchange, which I’m going to guess involved food, fresh water, alcohol, gossip, songs, gifts, and possibly an era-appropriate ritual or three.

I tossed in the rituals because Orkney’s rich in sites that hint at them, and every one of them involved an immense amount of labor. You don’t do all that if they don’t matter to you and if you don’t have time and energy to spare. 

Irrelevant photo: hemp agrimony

Skara Brae

Around 5,000 years ago, a group of people built a village on Orkney that’s now called Skara Brae. What they called it is anyone’s guess. A lot can get lost in 5,000 years, including a name. The people who lived there farmed, hunted, and fished.

The village is older than Stonehenge, older than the pyramids, and older than me. It was inhabited for something along the lines of 650 years and abandoned for reasons we can only guess at, but for us what’s significant about it is that at some point it was covered over by sand, which preserved it until a storm swept the sand off in 1850, uncovering an archaeologist’s dream.

The village is a circle of stone-built, single-room houses linked by roofed passages, with one larger building that according to one article might’ve been a workshop, although I can’t help wondering if it wouldn’t have been a place for everyone to gather. The walls were made of two layers of stone with insulation in between and the roofs were slate. Each house had a hearth, two beds outlined by stone slabs, which would have kept the bedding in place, and what are called dressers because–well, they have to be called something. To me, they look more like stone bookshelves, although this was a bookless, writingless world, so let’s stick with dressers. It’s chilly up there. People would’ve worn clothes, although that might not have been what they stored on them. They could’ve stored useful stuff, beautiful stuff, things they didn’t want to step on in the dark–say the neolilthic equivalent of Lego pieces.

For some fabulous photos, follow the link.

The houses also had tanks set into the floor. One house had an indoor toilet, although since plumbing was still a long way in the future that might not have been a great idea. I wasn’t there, so I can’t know.

Around the settlement, archaeologists have found dice, jewelry, tools, carved stone objects (objects here meaning things that are mysterious to us), and pottery in a style that spread to mainland Britain, supporting the argument that Orkney was an important site in the culture–a place that led the way. What hasn’t been found is weaponry, and the village wasn’t in an easily defended spot, arguing that this was a time and place of peace.

Not far from Skara Brae are two stone circles, The Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness; a chambered tomb, Maes Howe; and an assortment of unexcavated sites that hint at being ceremonial, burial, and settlement sites. The places that have been excavated show evidence of feasting–lots of feasting.

I won’t try to take you through the details of the excavations. I wouldn’t trust myself to get it right anyway. Follow the links if you want to know more. You’ll find lots of measurements and layouts. Or else settle for knowing that a lot went on in this seemingly isolated spot. 

So, did this important cultural center contribute the Stonehenge altar stone that’s recently been spotted as having come from somewhere in northeast Scotland or the Orkneys? It would make sense. They built similar monuments, but no. Orkney’s been ruled out and the search for the source of the altar stone goes on.