Sökandet efter en kung

Barnamördare. Usurpator. Puckelryggig. Monster. Galen. Många har en bild av Richard III, kanske färgad av William Shakespeares pjäs med hans namn. Eller så är det just att han tog två barn, sina brorsöner, och låste in dem i Towern där han sedan på ett eller annat sätt tog livet av dem man känner till. En medeltida kung med fler historier och skrönor kring sin person än de flesta. Få hade nog kunnat ana att han skulle göra anspråk på 2010-talet.

1924 grundades The Fellowship of the White Boar av S. Saxon Barton, en kirurg från Liverpool, Namnet kom från den vita vildsvinsgalt som utgjorde Richard III:s vapen, och syftet med sällskapet var att rentvå Richards rykte, det om en halt och lytt och nästan vansinnig barnamördare som levt kvar från Shakespeares pjäs. Under 1950-talet ökar intresset, inte minst med utgivningen av Josephine Teys kriminalroman, The Daughter of Time, där Richards skuld i prinsarnas försvinnande granskas och betvivlas. Sir Laurence Olivier släppte en film om Shakespeares pjäs Richard III där det slogs fast att beskrivningen av kungen bara var fiktion och en välvilligt inställd biografi om Richard kom ut. Vinden hade vänt, och 1959 bytte The Fellowship of the White Boar namn till Richard III Society. Fortfarande var det dock ingen som visste var den någorlunda återupprättade monarken hade sin sista viloplats.

Vägen till Bosworth

Richard III var en kontroversiell monark. När hans bror Edward IV dog 1482 utsågs han till förmyndare för sina brorsöner varav den äldsta, Edward var avsedd att bli Edward V. De två pojkarna fördes till Towern för att aldrig någonsin komma ut därifrån, och deras faktiska öden är fortfarande ett mysterium. Kung, det blev Richard själv istället, och även om det vore fel att påstå att han var impopulär hos alla, så fanns det flera tronpretendenter, den främsta av vilka, och den slutgiltiga segraren, var den walesiske adelsmannen Henry Tudor.

Henry Tudor var brorson till kung Henry VI, men hade förlorat sin adliga titel när den sistnämnde störtades och var under många år tvungen att leva i landsflykt. Initialt hade han bara varit intresserad av att få sin titel tillbaka, men med de turbulenta tider som kom med Richards övertagande av tronen från sin brorson så såg han sin chans att få hela kungariket, och lyckades samla en del anhängare.

Det var en vacker dag, den där dagen den 22 augusti 1485. Det var sensommar, och samtida källor nämner att kungen hade solen i ryggen. Hur påverkade Henry Tudors brist på stridsvana hans trupper? Var de nervösa? Kände sig Richard lite mer säker i sadeln, både bildligt och praktiskt talat? Han hade mer erfarenhet av strid än den fem år yngre Henry, och kanske var han helt säker på att han skulle vara den som skulle avgå med segern när de möttes vid Bosworth.  Om så var fallet så hade det inte bara med den egna erfarenheten att göra, han gick dessutom i fält med 8 000 män mot Henry Tudors 5000. Bara den numerära övermakten, och obalansen i stridsvana borde ha avgjort det hela. Kanske hade så också blivit fallet om kungen haft en egen armé. Som det nu var, var han beroende av sina adelsmän och deras underlydande som de tog med sig i fält. En av dessa adelsmän var Thomas Stanley, earlen av Derby. Thomas Stanley hade ett rykte om sig att alltid vara på den vinnande sidan, i regel genom beräkning och svek i den sista minuten. Just denna dag fanns det ytterligare en anledning för Richard III att se honom som opålitlig; Thomas Stanley var gift med Henry Tudors mamma, och därmed pretendentens styvfar. För att försäkra sig om att ha Stanley på sin sida hade kungen tagit hans son som gisslan med meddelandet att om Stanley försökte sig på att byta sida på slagfältet så skulle sonen omedelbart avrättas. Thomas Stanley förhöll sig kallsinnig och meddelade kungen att han hade fler söner.  Resultatet blev dock att Thomas Stanley till att börja med inte gjorde något. Alls. Bröderna Stanley placerade sig på varsin höjd på vardera sida där slaget skulle stå; the fair green hills of England, så väl omvittnade.  Därifrån hade de uppsikt över hur striden böljade fram och tillbaka, som tidvatten. De väntade, in i det sista med att ansluta sig och när det väl skedde, på Henry Tudors sida.

Det sades, även bland hans motståndare, att han kämpade in i det sista men till slut gick det inte mer. ”Galten” blev rakad, sades det

Skelettet framför osteologen Jo Appleby, över 500 år senare, tillhör en vuxen man, i ålder någonstans mellan den sena tjugoårsåldern och den sena trettioårsåldern. Vid närmare analyser, begränsas åldern till att ligga mellan 30 och 34 år. När Richard III dog var han 32 år. Skelettet är finlemmat för en man, men tvärt emot vad Thomas More och William Shakespeare åratal efter den fallne kungens död påstod så finns det inga tecken på vare sig hälta eller en förtvinad arm.  Däremot har mannen lidit av en svår skolios som sannolikt skulle ha gjort hans högra axel högre placerad en den vänstra; bakgrunden till den infamösa puckelryggen som fått fäste i Richard III:s eftermäle. Vidare kunde man konstatera att han hade varit cirka 174 centimeter lång, och därmed något längre än genomsnittet av sina samtida. Den sneda ryggen bör dock ha fått honom att verka kortare än han i själva verket var. Skadorna var många, 11 stycken som kunde identifieras på skelettet, och utan tvekan hade de varit ännu fler på kroppens mjukdelar. I samtida källor berättas det om hur ”galtens (en hänvisning till Richards vapen) huvud blivit rakat. Kraniet Jo Appleby hade framför sig hade tre kraftiga skador uppe på skallen, samtliga med tecken på att ha åstadkommits med ett svärd. Högst uppe på skallen fanns ett sticksår. Den kraftigaste skadan påträffades vid skallbasen, en stort hål som bedömdes ha åstadkommits med en hillebard; en spjutyxa, eller liknande. Denna skada hade varit direkt dödande. I ansiktet påträffades flera stickskador, en skada på högra sidans tionde revben och slutligen en huggskada i bäckenbenet som uppkommit efter döden, möjligen ett svärdshugg i skinkan i syfte att förnedra.

Efter slaget fördes den döde före detta monarken till närbelägna staden Leicester, där han placerades för allmän beskådan i Church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary för att det skulle stå helt klart för hans anhängare att han verkligen var död. Därifrån togs han till Greyfriars, ett mindre franciskanerkloster etablerat i Leicester 1250.

”Richards kropp hittades bland de övriga döda. Många förolämpningar östes över den, och, inte så humant, lades en snara om hans hals. Han fördes till Leicester. De tog kungen dit den natten, så naken som när han föddes och han lades i Newark där många honom fick se” Crowland Krönikorna, 1486

Grey Friars finns inte längre kvar, inte heller den monument i marmor och alabaster över Richard som hans efterträdare Henry VII enligt samtida källor lät resa tio år efter hans död. Henry VIII:s upplösning av klosterväsendet 1538 hårt åt både ordern och byggnaden, klostret revs, monumentet försvann och genom århundradena skiftade ägarna till den mark som det en gång stod på. 1612 blev det plötsligt en accepterad sanning att den före detta monarken hade grävts upp och hans kvarlevor kastats i vattnet vid Bow Bridge. En plakett sattes upp vid bron, och när man 1862 fiskade upp ett skelett ur dyn så påstods det under en period att den sista Plantagenet-kungen var funnen. Undersökningar av skelettet visade dock så småningom att detta var en annan olycksdrabbad person, och kungen förblev försvunnen.

Arbete för upprättelse

1975 publicerades en artikel, skriven av Audrey Strange, i sällskapets medlemstidning, där hon presenterade hypotesen att kungens kvarlevor fanns under en parkeringsplats i centrala Leicester. Denna hypotes upprepades drygt tio år senare av den engelske historikern David Baldwin som skrev i en artikel att en arkeolog under det tjugoförsta århundradet kanske skulle hitta kvarlevorna av Richard III, och att han själv trodde att de i så fall fortfarande befann sig i Grey Friars-området i Leicester. Genom åren var Richard III Society naturligtvis intresserade av att eventuellt finna var Richard var begravd, men gjorde inga ansträngningar för att starta ett sökande.

Detta kom att förändras. Åren 2004 och 2005 befann sig Philippa Langley, sekreterare för sällskapets skotska gren, i Leicester för att göra efterforskningar inför en dramatiserad, biografisk, film om Richard III. Just under 2005 kom historikern John Ashdown-Hill med ett avslöjande; genom två nu levande ättlingar till Richards syster, Anne of York, hade han säkrat DNA på mödernesidan. Skulle Richards kvarlevor en dag påträffas så skulle det ara möjligt att identifiera honom. Även han hävdade, baserat på sin kunskap om planlösningen för franciskanerkloster, att den forne kungen vilade under en parkering i centrala Leicester, och inte som tidigare misstänkts under bebyggda områden. Under påföljande år finner Philippa Langley funnit en karta som visade var det gamla klostret en gång stått. Det var dags att sätta igång, och projektet ”Looking for Richard” startades.

Sökandet startar

I mars 2011 startades en arkeologisk utredning av Grey Friars för att ta reda på exakt var klostret, och inte minst kyrkans kor hade varit beläget. En undersökning med markradar genomfördes utan att man såg inga tydliga strukturer efter äldre byggnader. Man bestämde sig dock för tre platser för potentiella schakt; en som tillhörde personalen på stadsförvaltningen, en allmän parkering och en närbelägen lekpark. Även i nutid kan myter uppstå, och en av de kring sökandet efter Richard berättar om hur Philippa Langley stod på den första parkeringen, i en ruta markerad med R, vilket för de flesta betyder ”Reserverad” men också kan betyda ”Rex”; kung. Hon skulle senare hävda att hon kände i hela sin kropp att hon stod precis ovanför Richards kvarlevor. Det är svårt att veta vad hon kände och vad som är efterhandskonstruktion; men hon begärde att man skulle gräva just där, och det första av tre schakt öppnades.

Kanske var det tur, eller kanske hade Philippa Langley verkligen känt något när hon stod på den regnfuktiga parkeringen. I detta första schakt påträffades nämligen de skeletterade kvarlevorna av en person. Det är inte svårt att föreställa sig att de närvarande fick gåshud när denna viloplats var helt frilagd. Här låg en person, helt intakt så när som på fötterna, som förmodligen schaktats bort i samband med byggandet av det närmast belägna huset. Graven var för liten för den som placerats där, och från axlarna och uppåt vilade skelettet mot gravens kortsida. Skallen uppvisade omedelbart svåra skador, möjligen från svärdshugg. Det som förmodligen fick tiden att stanna för de närvarande var ryggraden. Vem det än var som låg i graven så hade personen under sin levnad haft en svårartad skolios.

Kroppen tas omsorgsfullt upp och förs till laboratoriet på Leicesters universitet, och det blir nu osteologen Jo Appleby arbete att ta reda på så mycket hon kan om personen man påträffat. Undersökningen av skelettet pågick hela hösten, parallellt med DNA- och benanalys. Den 4 februari 2013 kom så beskedet. Kvarlevorna man påträffat under parkeringens asfalt var bortom all rimlig tvivel de efter Richard III, en gång kung av England.

Kungens ryggrad, och Dominics

När nyheten kom ut i England, att den siste kungen av ätten Plantagenet hade identifierats, satt den då 26 år gamla Dominic Smee och såg detta på TV, och det skulle komma att förändra hans liv. Det var inte bara det att han tillsammans med sin mamma sedan flera år tillbaka årligen deltog i aktiviteterna kring återskapandet av slaget vid Bosworth. Att se Richard III:s kraftigt böjda ryggrad var för Dominic Smee nästan som att se sin egen ryggrad. Både Dominics och Richard har, och hade en mellan 60–70 procentig krökning av ryggraden, och denna typ av skolios är idag ovanlig, då de som har en 50-procentig kurva eller mer i de allra flesta fall genomgår en operation för att räta ut ryggraden. Andra medicinska faktorer hade dock hindrat Dominic från att gå igenom en sådan operation. Nu såg han sin chans att bidra till forskningen kring Richard. När frågorna uppstod om hur Richard verkligen hade klarat på ett slagfält. Kunde han rida och hålla en lans eller kämpa i närstrid med ett svärd, eller var hans eftermäle som skicklig på slagfältet bara ett resultat av medeltida propagandister? Samtida källor berättar hur han ledde anfallet mot Henry Tudors styrkor.

Dominic Smee anmälde sig som stående till förfogande för sådana utforskningar. Därmed började en hård träning både i att slåss med svärd, att rida samt på löpbandet. Dominic kämpade med det senare, då hans skolios påverkade hans bröstkorg och förhindrade att hans lungor att expandera som de behövde. Dominic flämtade och gav sig på nästa utmaning. Att kämpa med svärd, gick det? Det gjorde det, mycket bättre än att springa. Under denna inredning ingick det många ”första gången”, och en av dessa var att ge sig upp på hästryggen, på en häst fysiskt så lik en medeltida stridshäst som möjligt. Man började Dominics lektioner med en med en modern ridsadel, och det gick bra till att börja med, Dominic lärde sig snabbt att rida men han blev också snabbt trött i ryggen. Hur hade det varit för Richard III? Samtida källor, även från hans motståndare, beskrev honom som snabb, skicklig och orädd. Var det inte sant? För även om Dominic Smee klarade av alla de moment som krävdes, så var det fler hinder för honom när det gällde uthållighet och styrka inte minst i rygg och armar. Skulle någon med en närmast identisk kurva på sin ryggrad orka sig igenom ett slag?

Det skulle komma att vända. Den första överraskningen var när man sadlade Dominics häst med den typ av sadel som användes på medeltiden. Tillverkad i trä och hård, men med ett ryggstöd som nådde upp till midjan på ryttaren. Det visade sig att det var exakt vad Dominic behövde för att orka en avsevärt längre stund på hästryggen.

Nästa steg började med en jakt på en medeltida rustning, och då en sådan inte längre finns att uppbringa i England tog jakten forskningsgruppen till Sverige och den danskfödde vapensmeden Per Lillelund, som gör en helt anpassad rustning till Dominic.

Effekten av rustningen är lika häpnadsväckande som den medeltida sadeln, den fungerar som ett stöd för Dominics kropp, kanske liknande det en korsett skulle ha. Den ger ryggraden stöd och gör det lättare att orka. Var det så rustningen också fungerade för Richard III?

Efter att ha låtit Dominic Smee delta i arrangerade strider både till häst och till fots kan det konstateras: med den träning i stridskonst som Richard som adlig fått sedan barndomen så är det högst troligt att han var den skickliga krigare som samtida observatörer hävdat.

Från parkeringen till katedralen

Den 25 mars 2015 var det dags. Trots att drottningen sagt nej till att ge Richard en kunglig begravning skulle han få den närmast statsmannaliknande begravning han hade nekats mer än 500 år tidigare, och det skulle börja där det slutade. Hans kista fördes med bil från det nu uppodlade slagfältet fram till Leicester där kistan lyftes upp på en hästdragen vagn. Omgiven av riddare till häst fördes han högtidligt fram genom Leicesters gator medan en hel värld såg på, 20 000 personer på plats. Ceremonin förrättades av Justin Welby, ärkebiskop av Canterbury, tal hölls och Benedict Cumberbatch, för de flesta känd som Sherlock Holmes i serien med samma namn, men också en avlägsen kusin till monarken dagen var tillägnad, läste den nyskrivna dikten Richard. Richard III hade äntligen förts till sin sista vila.

Källor: https://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60804-7/fulltext

Last Days of Richard III – John Ashdown-Hill

King Richard’s Grave in Leicester – David Baldwin

Henry V

Henry V was the warrior king whose reputation his unfortunate son never could live up to, and against whom Henry VIII would allegedly measure himself, but he wasn´t born an heir to the throne.

Instead his cousin once removed, Richard II, was on the throne, and Henry himself was quite far from succession. Due to his “insignificance” in the succession line, the date of his birth was never officially recorded, but set as August 9, 1386. He was born in the gatehouse of Monmouth Castle in Wales – a fact that has led to him sometimes being referred to as Henry of Monmouth – the first child of a 20-year-old Henry of Bolingbrook and 16-year-old Mary de Bohun.

When Henry was 12 years old, in 1498, his father who had a tumultuous relationship to Richard II was banished from the country by the king, but the younger Henry himself was taken under the wings of the king, but only a year later the Lancastrian usurpation brought his own father to the throne, and suddenly Henry of Monmouth was the heir to the throne.

Henry has, with the aid of Shakespeare, received a rumour of having been a carefree and irresponsible youth, more interested in drinking and cavorting with a merry band of similar minded men, but nothing in actual history suggest this to be true.

His father soon put him to what would have been considered good use as commander of part of the English forces, and as such he led his army against Owain Glyndwr in Wales as well as joined his father in the battle of Shrewsbury against Henry Percy, also known as Harry Hotspur, in 1403 when the future Henry V was only 16 years old.

This battle could have been the end of the future king as he is said to have been shot in the face by an arrow which got lodged and had to be removed surgically.

The removal of the arrowhead is considered to be a remarkable piece of battlefield surgery, an art that didn´t have much in common with any kind of modern day surgery. The man who probably saved the life of the young prince was a John Bradmore who had been in royal service since 1399, and his own description of how he went about removing the arrowhead has survived;

“…..was struck by an arrow next to his nose on the left side during the battle of Shrewsbury. The which arrow entered at an angle (ex traverso), and after the arrow shaft was extracted, the head of the aforesaid arrow remained in the furthermost part of the bone of the skull for the depth of six inches.”

Bystanders had been yanking at the arrow before Bradmore arrived, but instead of just pulling, he enlarged the wound to remove the arrowhead easier;

“First, I made small probes from the pith of an elder, well dried and well stitched in purified linen [made to] the length of the wound. These probes were infused with rose honey. And after that, I made larger and longer probes, and so I continued to always enlarge these probes until I had the width and depth of the wound as I wished it. And after the wound was as enlarged and deep enough so that, by my reckoning, the probes reached the bottom of the wound, I prepared anew some little tongs, small and hollow, and with the width of an arrow. A screw ran through the middle of the tongs, whose ends were well rounded both on the inside and outside, and even the end of the screw, which was entered into the middle, was well rounded overall in the way of a screw, so that it should grip better and more strongly.”

The wound was treated with honey for its antiseptic qualities and flushed out with alcohol, healing but leaving a scar that no doubt would have kept this day in the memory of Henry for the remainder of his life.

Henry IV started suffering from poor health at the beginning of the 15^th century, resulting in the prince in practical control over the government from 1410, something that changed in 1411, due to disagreement between father and son on both domestic and foreign policies. This was only a political disagreement, but may very well be on what Shakespeare built the conflict in his play.

Henry IV died on March 20, 1413 and prince Hal was crowned Henry V just over two weeks later, on April 9, at Westminster Abbey.

Henry´s reign at home was relatively free from trouble, but he had a couple of occasions to demonstrate that he was not to be crossed, such as the execution of his old friend, the Lollard sympathizer John Oldcastle (believed to be one of at least two people merged into Shakespeare´s Falstaff, originally called Oldcastle) as well as the handling of the men behind the alleged Southampton Plot.

What Henry primarily have come to be remembered for are his campaigns in France, starting in 1415, when he sailed from England on August 12 after which his forces besieged the fortress at Harfleur, finally taking it on September 22. Henry then decided to lead his men to Calais, and it was on the way there they were intercepted by a French army on October 25, not far from the village of Agincourt.

Henry´s men were exhausted, but even so he led them into battle, thoroughly defeating the French and gaining a victory which would be seen as Henry´s greatest, bringing the English closer to recovering lost French territory as well as Henry himself closer to the French throne. The battle however left the king with a dark shadow as he ordered all prisoners, even those of noble birth who normally would have been released for ransom, to be killed.

This shadow became even stronger during his second campaign between 1417 and 1520 when he during the siege of Rouen let women and children starve to death. Arriving at the gates of Paris in August 1419 he eventually secured the Treaty of Troyes which recognized him as the heir to the French throne and not even a year after arriving in France, he married Catherine of Valois, daughter of the French king.

During a third campaign to France, starting in March 1421 with the king sailing over in August that same year, his forces besieged and captured both Dreux and Meaux. This would however be the last campaign for the warrior king who died from presumed dysentery on August 31, 1422, leaving behind an only 8 months old heir to the throne, Henry VI.

 Sources;

John Bradmore´s account of the removal of the arrowhead is “borrowed” from the Medievalist.net website, and originally taken from a paper by Michael Livingstone, associate professor at The Citadel.

Henry V (1386–1422) – Christopher Allmand, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

The Life and times of Henry V – P. Earle

Henry V. The Practice of Kingship – Leslie Gerald Harris

Half-penny image – Rasiel

Guthrum, founder of the Dane Law

It´s not known when Guthrum was born, or how he acquired the power necessary to lead the Vikings under the Danelaw, but it is fairly certain that he arrived in England with the great Viking invasion in 865, and it´s absolutely certain that he gave Alfred the Great a run for his crown.

This invasion force came to be known as The Great Heathen Army in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of that same year, and was a consolidation of Viking warriors, probably mainly from Denmark, but also from Norway and Sweden, and was quite different from the previous “hit and run”-attacks on England performed by Vikings in that it lasted for 14 years.

Ten years later, in 875, the Great Heathen Army split into two, with one part being led further north while the other part, under the command of Guthrum set up base in East Anglia, from where he only a year later had acquired parts of Mercia and Northumbria, with his sight set on Wessex, ruled by Alfred the Great with the first confrontation between them as a result.

Sailing around Poole Harbour and linking up with another Viking army which was invading the area between the Frome and Piddle rivers, he defeated Alfred this first time, taking the castellum and the ancient square earthworks known as the Wareham.

A peace settlement brokered by Alfred didn´t last long, because in 877 Guthrum´s army moved further into Wessex, with a series of confrontations between the two as a result, all won by Guthrum and his forces.

The beginning of the end came on Epiphany, January 6, 878 Guthrum´s army launched a surprise attack on Alfred and his court at Chippenham in the middle of the night. To avoid capture Alfred fled into the marshes of Somerset with only a few retainers. Building up his forces over the months to come, he fought a guerilla war against the Vikings until the two forces eventually met for the Battle of Eddington in May 878.

It´s not known how great the respective forces were, or how many that died on either side, it seems Guthrum´s forces may have been weakened by internal disputes as well as the loss of 120 ships in a storm in 876-77. After the battle, which Alfred eventually won, the remaining Viking forces fled to a fortress where they were besieged for two weeks before giving up due to lack of food.

Guthrum negotiated the Treaty of Wedmore with Alfred, in which he agreed to be baptised as a Christian, adopting the name of Aethelstan and accepting Alfred as his Godfather. Guthrum respected the treaty for the remainder of his life, withdrawing his forces from the western borders of Wessex and retreated to the Kingdom of Guthrum in East Anglia where he died at an unknown age in 890. He was buried at Headleage, which is usually identified as Hadleigh in Suffolk.

 The Danelaw, as mentioned in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, is the historical name of the part of England where the laws of the Danes, or Vikings, held sway over the Anglo-Saxon laws. While the name first came to describe the legal terms in the treaties drawn up between Alfred and Guthrum and formalised in 886, defining the boarders of their respective kingdoms as well as providing provisions for relations between the English and the Vikings.

The term was first recorded in the early 11^th century as Dena Lage. While first only describing the legal terms, it has come to include the area which was ruled under the Danelaw, compromising 14 shires: York, Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln, Essex, Cambridge, Suffolk, Norfolk, Northampton, Huntingdon, Bedford, Hertford, Middlesex and Buckingham.

Sources:

From Alfred the Great to Stephen – R.H.C Davis

Anglo Saxon Chronicle Trans. by M. J. Swanton

Scandinavian Britain – F.Y Powell, M.A. Collingwood

The Northern Conquest: Vikings in Britain and Ireland – K. Holman

Map by Hel-hama/Wikimedia Commons

Map of The Great Heathen Army´s movement – The History Podcast

 

Barking Abbey, part II

While the women of the poorer classes have been working since the beginning of time, “work” was not an option for women of the higher classes of society and in many cases the options were two: get married or join a convent.

The fact that some women either by their own will or by the will of the family became nuns has sometimes inspired thinking in the terms of at what rate it was religious convictions that made people join a nunnery, but I feel that in using those words, we are beginning to apply our secular way of thinking to people living in an age when “not believing in God” was as unlikely an option as finding work was for an Earl´s daughter.

This alone was not the reason for the number of daughters from the nobility choosing, or being expected to, to join a convent. Both Power and Barnes point out that doing so what not necessarily an undertaking done for free, something which is indicated already in the paying of a dowry by John of Gaunt to Barking Abbey for the admittance of Elizabeth Chaucer. Just as a wedding, the joining of the monastic life was a cost that often needed to be covered by, if possible, the bride´s family regardless of the groom was a man of flesh and blood or God.

Another factor that speaks to the advantage for women of the nobility was that the woman wanting to become a nun was expected to have some level of education. Among the lower classes, the literacy among men was lower than 20 percent England in the 1550´s, and far lower among women. Literacy among women could be found among the gentry, the mercantile class and the nobility, which obviously in most cases excluded for example the thatcher´s daughter from a life as a nun.

In 1527 they had seen Dorothy Barley, when she would have been around 37 years old, become elected abbess, a process that required a license from the patron of the order, in this case the king as Barking Abbey was a royal monastery and once that was achieved four scrutineers were chosen. Their task was to appoint candidates for the role as abbess and then the election would be held on a feast day.

All nuns would cast their vote, and to be an eligible candidate the minimum requirement was that the nun in question was at least 21 years old, of legitimate birth and of good reputation. While her popularity among the other nuns no doubt played some part, and it has been suggested that the social standing of her family outside the monastery also played its part, what was most important was her merit and capability, or as expressed in the Benedictine Rule chapter 64 requires that a nun be chosen for wisdom and doctrine.

As Abbess Dorothy Barley had her own household away from the rest of the nuns, and most likely it was also here that the children staying as wards lived. From 1437 to 1440 the two small boys Jasper and Edmund Tudor stayed here under the supervision of Katherine de la Pole, and in the last decade leading up to the surrender of the Abbey, Sir John Stanley dedicated his son to the care of the Abbess of Barking Abbey, where the boy would stay until the age of 12.

Possibly was that the same John Stanley who was an illegitimate son of the Bishop of Ely, and if so, the boy in question would only have been four at the time he joined the Abbess of Barking Abbey. For the upbringing and education of the young boy, the abbess received £20 per year. There are in some documents signs that other children may have been boarded in the household of the abbess, but unfortunately the names of their families does not remain.

She, the abbess, would also have had the responsibility for both the financial and the judicial sides of the monastery. The financial matters included the administration of the abbeys funds, which derived from leases of demesne land of the 15 manors that was in the possession of the abbey, the lease for the mill in Barking as well as rents and taxes. Added to that there was an inflow of grain, produce, hay and wood from the manors.

The ones belonging to Barking at the time of the dissolution was basically the same that hed belonged to the abbey since the 13^th century: Barking, Abbes Hall, Bulphan, Caldecoates, Cokermouth, Down Hall, Great Warley, Hanley Hall, Hewkesbury, Highall, Hockley, Ingatestone, Leaden Roding, Mucking, Tollesbury, Wangey Hall, Westbury, Wigborough and Wood Barns.

Both products and cash were used by the Obedentiaries, such as the Cellaress, the Sacrist and the Infirmaress, for the upkeep of the monastery and the sustenance of the nuns and those living in the monastery, not always just the nuns, which I will return to, it seems as if the different offices had their “own” manors from which they received the revenue to make the economy of their “department” go round financially.

The abbess would also be involved in handle litigations, a not a too uncommon occurrence for the abbey as a major landholder with tenants. For these instances she had the assistance of stewards, two during the last years of the existence of Barking Abbey. They also were in employ of the monastery to keep an eye on the manors and lands belonging to the abbey, and from the 13^th century it was common practice that these stewards had a legal education.

While the abbess in modern day terminology in many ways would have been seen as the public relations officer, spending most of her time dealing with the monastery´s contacts with the outside world – requiring her to be respected in a society run by men – she also had assistance by people who, to continue the modern day terminology, was in charge of the HR-department.

This was the work of the prioress, second in command to the abbess and a position held in the last years of Barking Abbey by Thomasina Jenney who had been at the abbey since the late 15^th century and up until 1508 had held the position as sacrist. In 1508 she was elected prioress, a position she held for the remainder of the abbey´s existence. She was assisted by a sub-prioress and due to the wealth and power of Barking Abbey, a third prioress, and their work was to oversee the work of the obedentiaries who all held different offices within the monastery.

While the abbess was elected, the prioress and the obedentiaries were appointed, and this was a process that took place every year on the first Monday of Lent in the Charter House after Mass.  The work of the nuns holding the offices during the previous year was evaluated by the abbess and those who had excelled at their tasks might be in for a promotion while those who had performed a less than satisfactory work could be demoted from their positions and return to the life of an ordinary nun. One example of promotion is that of Margaret Scrope who had been made precentrix in 1527, lady of the pension in 1535-36 and promoted to sub prioress some time before 1539. Another example of someone who had clearly managed her office very well is Thomasina Jenney who, as previously mentioned, held her office as prioress for 30 years.

On this day positions which had become vacant due to for example the death of the previous holder was filled.

Sources:

House of Benedictine Nuns: Barking Abbey in “A history of the County of Essex: Volume 2, ed. William Page and J Horace Round (London 1907) British History Online

A nun´s life: Barking Abbey in the late-medieval and early modern periods – Theresa L. Barnes, Portland State University, 2004.

Barking Abbey: A study in its external and internal administration from the conquest to the dissolution – Winifred K. Sturman, University of London, 1961.

Dugdale Monasticon, Vol 1, part 15: Charthe longynge to the Office of the Celeresse of the Monasterye of Barkinge. 1655.

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of Henry VIII, August-December 1539.

Barking Abbey, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Museum and Heritage, Local History Resources.

Essex Record Office

 

 

 

Barking Abbey, part 1

In the late 1530´s an era of over 1 000 years of monasticism in England went to its grave. For many of those who had spent their lives as monks, or as I will write about here, nuns, this was a surely earth shattering ending to a way of life one surely thought would last for the remainder of one´s life.

For a long time throughout history, the life choices of women were basically restricted to either marriage, or if her family belonged to the nobility – or increasingly towards the end of monasticism – the upper gentry, or to the joining of a convent.

In those convents, women could achieve something similar to freedom, but a freedom within restraints, the restraints of the order they had join itself.

I have chosen to write about Barking Abbey, focusing on the women of living there during the last years before the surrendering of the abbey to the crown.

Barking Abbey, founded around 666 in Essex by St. Erkenwald for his sister St. Ethelburga who was the first abbess there, was a royal monastery which originally housed both nuns and monks, but this would change during the Middle ages. As a royal monastery, the king originally had the right to choose the abbess, but after pressure from the pope, this changed during the reign of King John, and the nuns got the right to elect their abbess themselves. What remained was that at his accession, each king had the right to appoint a nun to the monastery.

During the centuries prominent women had been holding the position as abbess, among whom can be mentioned three Maudes, the wife of Henry I, the wife of King Stephen and the daughter of Henry II.

Henry II also used the position as a prioress at Barking Abbey for the reparation of the murder of Thomas Becket by appointing his sister Mary Becket. Here Edward II kept the wife of Robert the Bruce, Elizabeth, for a year before she was traded for English prisoners held in Scotland, and years later his grandson, John of Gaunt would pay the admission dowry to Barking Abbey for Elizabeth Chaucer, the daughter of his friend, the poet Geoffrey Chaucer.

 

During the centuries, Barking Abbey remained one of the most powerful and rich abbey in the country, and the abbess here had precedence over all other abbesses in England. Had she been a man, she automatically would have had a place among the Lords in parliament and she was one of only four abbesses in the country who had baronial status, the others being the abbesses of Shaftsbury, Wilton and St Mary´s at Winchester.

After a decision made by St. Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury in the 10^th century, Barking Abbey followed the Rule of St. Benedict. Out of the around 138 nunneries that existed in England between 1270 and 1536, more than half belonged to the Benedictine order.

The Benedictine order was, and is, an order which is more moderate than many other monastic orders and St. Benedict himself said in the prologue of his Rules, which the Benedictine nuns (and monks) follow that he intended to prescribe “nothing harsh, nothing burdensome” for his followers and instead his approach to seeking God has been seen as both sensible and humane.

He also prescribed a balance between prayer and work, the Benedictines shouldn´t be so consumed by work that they forgot their spiritual responsibilities nor should they send so much time in prayer that their work was neglected.

All things – eating, drinking, sleeping, reading, working and praying – should be done in moderation; “All things must be given its due, but only its due. There should be something of everything and not too much of anything”.

The vows a Benedictine nun made when being professed was that of stability, fidelity (to the monastic way of life) and obedience. While “chastity” and “poverty” is mentioned in the Benedictine Rules, they are not the most important vows.

At the time of the dissolution, Barking Abbey was the third wealthiest in England, with an income of around £1 084 per year, superseded only by Shaftsbury Abbey and Sion Abbey.

The 31 women who at the time of the surrender of Barking Abbey had chosen to take the vows and to live according to the Rules were Dorothy Barley abbess and professed around 1507, Thomasina Jenney, Margaret Scrope, Dorothy Fitzlewes, Agnes Townesend who had been professed in or shortly before 1499, at which time Margaret Cotton had been a novice.

At the time of the election of Dorothy Barley for abbess in 1527, Gabriel Shelton, Margery Paston and Elizabeth Badock had been novices, to become professed nuns in 1534 together with Anne Snowe, Agnes Bukham, Margaret Bramstone, Elizabeth Bainbridge and Katherine Pollard, in a time when they no doubt they had thought they would survive the bath of steel and fire which would firstly would affect the smaller and poorer convents.

The other nuns, with no information of when they had been professed to be found, was Joan Fynchham, Margery Ballard, Martha Fabyan, Ursula Wentworth, Joan Drurye, Elizabeth Wyatt, Agnes Horsey, Susanna Suliarde, Elizabeth Banbrik, Mary Tyrell, with Margaret Kempe, Elizabeth Prist, Audrey and Winifred Mordant, Alice Hyde, Lucy Long, Matilda Gravell and Margaret Grenehyll being the youngest.

It is sometimes suggested that the option of joining the monastic life was something that was open to anyone, but this was not quite the case. Just as in arranging a marriage, a dowry would need to be provided, even though it was not officially allowed. This is illustrated not least in the earlier history of Barking Abbey, which seems to have been the nunnery of choice the upper classes. It is also demonstrated by the fact that the women at Barking Abbey whom it is possible to trace all belonged to nobility or upper gentry. Those women whom it is possible to trace among the last nuns of Barking Abbey also demonstrates that it was the daughters of the upper layers of society who either chose or was made to join the monastery.

Also during the last years, the names of the nuns where they too can be traced, confirm the assumption; Margery Paston was the daughter of Sir William Paston of Norfolk, Gabrielle Shelton daughter of Sir John and Lady Anne Shelton, the latter aunt of Anne Boleyn, to mention but two examples.

 

Sources:

House of Benedictine Nuns: Barking Abbey in “A history of the County of Essex: Volume 2, ed. William Page and J Horace Round (London 1907) British History Online

A nun´s life: Barking Abbey in the late-medieval and early modern periods – Theresa L. Barnes, Portland State University, 2004.

Barking Abbey: A study in its external and internal administration from the conquest to the dissolution – Winifred K. Sturman, University of London, 1961.

Dugdale Monasticon, Vol 1, part 15: Charthe longynge to the Office of the Celeresse of the Monasterye of Barkinge. 1655.

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of Henry VIII, August-December 1539.

Barking Abbey, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Museum and Heritage, Local History Resources.

Essex Record Office

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Henry II

I will elaborate more on Henry II at a later time, here just a sketchy portrait on the 862nd anniversary of his coronation, and a way to get back to blogging again. It´s been a long time off now!

Today it´s 862 years since Henry Plantagnet – the first king to use that name which had been adopted by his father Geoffrey of Anjou – in 1154 was crowned at Westminster Abbey alongside his wife, the quite feisty Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Henry was the son om Empress Matilda – or Lady of the English as she was also known during her own struggle for the English crown which unleashed the civil war known as The Anarchy on the English people, with her cousin Stephen of Blois on the opposite side of the battlefield – and Geoffrey ”the Fair”, count of Anjou.

Just as his mother, daughter of Henry I and granddaughter of William the Conqueror, had a strong sense of birth right, and had a vast kingdom at the end of his reign, all of which he is said to have kept under control by constantly being in the saddle, riding back and forward through his domains.

He would come to have eight children with Eleanor, and it is somewhat of an understatement to say that the harmony was sometimes lacking in the family.

His son´s Henry, the heir to the throne and referred to as Henry the Young King, and his brothers Richard (known to history as Richard the Lionhearted) and Geoffrey would eventually rebel – with the backing of their mother – against their father.

Henry was of course also the king who appointed his friend Thomas Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury, and caused his death through the allegedly misinterpreted words “Will someone rid me of this turbulent priest” once the friendship had turned sour.

The conflicts with his son´s continued, and after having been defeated in a final rebellion in 1189, he shortly after died from what is believed to have been a bleeding ulcer.

Sources:

Henry II – New Interpretations: Nicholas Vincent, Christopher Harper- Bill.

Henry II – W. L. Warren.

The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England – Dan Jones

Just a short paus

I should probably say that I by no means have given up on this blog.  I have just been swamped  with work and studies lately, but will return shortly.

 

Viking raid at Lindisfarne

When I was significantly younger, basically half of the age I have today, and went to Ireland with my best friend, there was a recurring joke among people we met to let out ”terrified” yelps or saying to something to the effect that they would go down fighting, both reactions caused by us being “Vikings”, and we happily played along, stating that we were back for some more plundering and pillage, as the vanguards clearly hadn´t quite gotten the job done.

This post is however not about Ireland, or benign “Vikings” like myself and my friend, but about the time when it became obvious that Vikings was going to pose a serious threat to the British Isles in what is widely acknowledged as the first Viking attack in England and the start of the Viking era; the raid of Lindisfarne on June 8, in the year 793.

It is documented what happened, in the words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle;

“Her wæron reðe forebecna cumene ofer Norðhymbra land, ⁊ þæt folc earmlic bregdon, þæt wæron ormete þodenas ligrescas, fyrenne dracan wæron gesewene on þam lifte fleogende. Þam tacnum sona fyligde mycel hunger, ⁊ litel æfter þam, þæs ilcan geares on .vi. Idus Ianuarii, earmlice hæþenra manna hergunc adilegode Godes cyrican in Lindisfarnaee þurh hreaflac mansliht”

Which would read in English;

“In this year fierce, foreboding omens came over the land of the Northumbrians, and the wretched people shook; there were excessive whirlwinds, lightning, and fiery dragons were seen flying in the sky. These signs were followed by great famine, and a little after those, that same year on 6th ides of January, the ravaging of wretched heathen people destroyed God’s church at Lindisfarne.”

It seems strange of course that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle state the Vikings as arriving in January when it´s generally accepted that it took place in June, and the conditions for sailing the sea in the, for Vikings, traditional long ships would be more favourable, but according to Michael Swanton, historian, archaeological metallurgist, architectural historian specialising in Old English literature and the Anglo-Saxon period (among many other things), is an error in the original document.

Also a Northumbrian scholar at Charlemagne´s court, Alcuin, was horrified: “Never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race … The heathens poured out the blood of saints around the altar, and trampled on the bodies of saints in the temple of God, like dung in the streets”.

The Vikings, or Northmen as they are called in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or again, Danes, as they are often known was not necessarily of one nationality and most likely had no allegiance between the groups. “Danes” should not automatically be taken as people from Denmark (not least as none of the national states as we now know them existed at the time), but raiding Danes consisted of people from the countries around the Baltic sea, indeed what is now Denmark, but also Sweden and the areas which today form the Baltic states.

But back to what happened on that fateful day of June 8, 793; Lindisfarne was just outside the coast of the mainland, and not unlikely it was a surprise to the raiding Vikings that a wealthy monastery was located in such an isolated and vulnerable area.

But Lindisfarne was also at the heart of the Northumbrian kingdom, and its monasteries was known for its books and arts. This may not have been objects valued by the Vikings, as books was not a commodity known to the people of the north. Not that they didn´t record their stories – even though many of them went on through oral tradition – we still find the tales of particularly worthy people carved into stones, the special Scandinavian runes.

Plundering, burning and killing the monks inhabiting the monastery of Lindisfarne, as well as terrifying everyone that managed to stay alive, the Viking was seen by representatives of the church sent by God, punishing the people struck down by the violent men from the north, something which maybe can be seen as slightly ironic, as the church and its wealth would continue to draw the Vikings attention in the years to come.

After the attack on Lindisfarne, the previously mentioned Alcuin who himself was a monk as most scholars of the time, took the opportunity to write to the Northumbrian king Ethelred as well as the Bishop of Lindisfarne where he urged them to, in the future “consider the dress, the way of wearing the hair, the luxurious habits of the princes and people”, just in case “this unaccustomed and unheard-of evil was merited by some unheard-of evil practice…” One can only say that victim blaming clearly isn´t a modern phenomenon.

The monastery of Lindisfarne did recover from this attack, but the raids would continue, all over England as well as Scotland – where Iona was attacked in 794, 802, 806 and 825. In the unlikely event Alcuin was on to something in his accusations, the monastery of St Columba had really aggravated God.

 

The Viking World – James Graham Campbell and David Wilson

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – Michael Swanton

BBC History

A History of Britain 3000BC – AD1603 – Simon Schama

 

 

The Grey Friars of Canterbury

When seen from a distance, as for example through the window of the Canterbury Heritage museum, which was the way I saw it for the first time two years ago, it doesn´t necessarily look much, the old stone house standing alone in the field.

But it is what remains of the very first Franciscan house in England, founded at a time when Francis of Assisi himself was still alive (although he had only two years left to live).

It was on September 10^th, 1224, that nine Franciscan Friars, Grey Friars, landed at Dover and from there made their way to Canterbury where they stayed at the priory of the Holy Trinity for two days before four of them continued on their way to London.

The remaining five stayed at the hospital of Poor Priests in Stour Street, the same street on which one today can see what remains of their time in Canterbury.

It seems they won the favour of the Archbishop Stephen Langton, and with the support of him, and the good will of Alexander, the master of the Hospital of Poor Priests, who gave them a plot of land on which they could build a chapel of which one unfortunately has found no trace during excavations. As it was part of the rules for the order that the Friars could hold no property, the chapel was owned by the citizens of Canterbury, and the Friars used it at the will of those citizens.

Other important benefactors during these early years included Simon Langton, Archdeacon of Canterbury and brother of the Archbishop as well as Loretta de Briouze (sometimes spelt Braose), countess of Leicester and daughter of William de Briouze, at one-time close associate to King John.

Loretta had been exiled in association with the plot to dethrone John in favour of her nephew by marriage, Simon de Montfort, but she returned sometime between 1211 and 1214, and had all previously confiscated lands restored to her.

Even so, she chose later to become a recluse or anchoress at Hackington north of Canterbury, from where she worked in favour of the Friars by using her contacts with influential individuals even though she was a recluse.

They seem to have stayed in the Hospital for Poor Priests and their chapel until 1268 when the alderman, and later bailiff of Canterbury, John Dygg (or Diggs) bought them the small island of Binnewith situated between two branches of river Stour – the location where the lone chapel now stands – as well as “the place of the gate on Stour Street” where one still today enter the compound of Grey friars even if the original gate is since long gone.

About 10 years later they were granted a license to enclose a road that formed the western border of their land, and the friary began to grow.

The remaining house is the one standing across the river

In 1309, they acquired a road leading from the highway leading to river Stour, and also obtained license to build a bridge across the river from said road leading up to their house “for the benefit of people wanting to attend service in their church, with the bridge built in such a way that boats could pass under it.

In 1325 the new church and cemetery were consecrated by Archbishop Reynolds in 1325, and it seems, from royal grants, that it at the time was 35 friars in the house, a number that in 1336 had risen to 37.

Only two years later, two of the friars, John Noke of Newington and John of Bromesdon, received a royal pardon for rescuing to felons on their way to execution in Canterbury.

This was only one of the times when members of the house can have been said to have been in trouble, but they also seem to have been popular. When they for unknown reason refused to pay rent to Christchurch and the monks there in turn withdrew an annual grant, the dowager queen Isabella intervened, to no avail though.

They both received bequeaths and buried prominent people of the area and time, and they survived through the centuries.

In 1498 Henry VII included the house among the convents of the Observant Friars, something which was confirmed by Pope Alexander VI a year later. When the king died in 1509, he left the friars 100 marks, and entrusted another £200 with the prior of Christchurch for the use of the Observant Friars of Canterbury.

They also received £13 6s 8d from Henry VIII to pray for the soul of his father.

While the first decades to have run smoothly between the new king and the Observant Friars of Canterbury, this was eventually to change. When Elizabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent, appeared in the 1530´s, two of her chief supporters, Hugh Rich and Richard Risby, were friars of this house. They stood by her side at the scaffold at St. Paul´s Cross on November 23^rd, 1533, for which they were denounced by Dr Capon for having “suborned and seduced their companions to maintain the false opinion and wicked quarrel of the queen against the king.”.

For this they were taken to Canterbury to do penance, and then to executed at Tyburn together with the Nun of Kent on April 20^th 1534. All three were buried at Grey Friars in London.

Around this time, which coincided with the demand for the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, the Friars of Canterbury seems to have begun to disperse. Some died, others were whisked away to safety and others yet fled to the continent.

But when the time came to take the oath, only two are noted as having refused to do so, Father Mychelsen and Father John Gam.

Henry VIII didn´t chose to have the Grey Friars supressed at this time, but instead he put them in what must have been a house arrest. A John Arthur was appointed as warden, who is said to have treated the Friars with severity, sometimes imprisoning them for “rebelling against the king”. He seems however to have been outsmarted by the Friar Henry Bocher, who managed to accuse John Arthur of speaking against the king, and also making it stick through a sermon held by Arthur helf on Passion Sunday in 1535, where he objected to “new books and new preachers discouraging pilgrimage”, with the result that Bocher went free and John Arthur was imprisoned at the command of Thomas Cromwell. He doesn´t however, have been prepared for the treatment he was willing to subject others to, and fled to France.

The friaries of Canterbury were dissolved in December 1538. At the time this friary consisted of the house and two messuages, two orchards, two gardens, 3 acres of land, 5 acres of meadow, and 4 acres of pasture in the parishes of St. Peter, St. Mildred, and St. Margaret.

Sources:

‘Friaries: The Franciscan friars of Canterbury’, in A History of the County of Kent: Volume 2, ed. William Page (London, 1926), pp. 190-194. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/kent/vol2/pp190-194

Briouze, Loretta de, Countess of Leicester (d. in or after 1266) – Susan Johns/Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

All photos are taken by me, apart from the map, which belong to East Bridge Hospital, Canterbury.

Prince Arthur: The Tudor King who Never Was – Review

Sean Cunningham

Amberley Publishing

Publication: 15^th July, 2016

I have had the honour to read the new book by Sean Cunningham about the son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York that we rarely hear about; Prince Arthur, the intended heir to the crown.

When the name Tudor is mentioned, I dare say that it isn’t the name “Arthur” that pops up in the head of most people, but rather those of either his father, the Henry who won the Battle of Bosworth and became “the seventh” or – and probably the most likely candidate – one thinks of Arthurs younger brother, Henry, who should never have been king but still became maybe the most famous and infamous king throughout British history as Henry VIII.

But in between the two Henry´s, father and son, was the firstborn: Prince Arthur, the Tudor King who never was, which is exactly the title of Sean Cunningham´s book about the nearly forgotten son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

He was born in September 1486, and would live for only 15 years, dying after falling ill in the damp caste of Ludlow, only months after his marriage to the Spanish princess Katherine of Aragon who would later be his brother´s first wife of six, whereby Henry not only took the throne which should have been Arthur´s, but also his queen.

Sean Cunningham travels through these 15 years, exploring the hopes of Arthur´s father when the boy was born, Arthur was a name the came with expectations, taken as it was from the mythical Arthur, and speculate how England might have evolved differently if this firstborn son would have been allowed by the powers that be to live to an old age and have children of his own to inherit the crown.

Arthur was not only a son to Henry, he was the anchor that tied him down to the English throne that up until then could be lost just as easily as he had won it, through conquest. With an heir, that also was the grandson of Edward IV, his claim was strengthened.

Prince Arthur – the Tudor King who never was is an expose of the years leading up to a reign that never took place, and the result of which we can only piece together from the ambitions Henry VII drew up, and from which one can see the contours of maybe a different kind of monarch than his younger brother came to be. And Sean Cunningham does a good job.

He also recounts the point where Arthur´s ghost return to the English court he never was head of, when the doubts of whether or not Arthur´s marriage to Katherine was ever consummated, a doubt which was highlighted in the process which is known as Henry´s great matter, his strife for annulment of the years he had spent with his Spanish queen.

We also meet Henry himself in relation to the brother he barely knew, as Arthur at a young age moved to his own household at the castle where he far too early met his death.

But most importantly, and unlike in many other books, here Arthur becomes an individual of his own, built on an extensive research a work rarely done previously by historians who has had a tendency to view Arthur as nothing more than a parenthesis between the two Henrys.

The book is important, and well worth the read both for those who are completely unfamiliar with this part of Tudor history, which in other respects is so accessible and for those who has made the acquaintance of Arthur before.