Richard III & the Car Park

[Mayerling]

http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.u...urch-1-4938132

It's gotten trendy to dig up old kings.

Hmm, I think we need to coin a term for this phenomena...

- Exhumomania?

Archaic

Hmm, first Richard, and now Alfred - is anyone scouring about Hastings for poor King Harold? Easty to identify - the skull should have markings of a sharp arrowhead in one of the eyesockets.

Jeff

[Phil H]

There are two views on Harold's burial place.

One story has it that he was buried on the shore at Hastings, by William's specific order.

Another that he was re-interred at his abbey at Walthamstow, where I believe they may have found his body already.

Battle Abbey's high altar was placed on the spot where he fell, I don't recall whether he may have been buried there too. I suspect not.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Hi Phil,

If they did find his body I know of no tour book that recommends a visit to the abbey as a final resting place. Somehow it seems a pity that England's greatest loser (because of his heroic efforts and death at Hastings) is not given more recognition. He died trying to protect his country. And many forget he did win a major military victory (though it delayed his confronting William, and may have exhausted his army) at Stamford Bridge against the Vikings and his traitorous half brother Tostig only two weeks before.

Jeff

[Monty]

Some images I took of the Greyfriars dig over the past few days.

My brother is actually working on this one, as so far found roof nails, tiles and the first piece of stained glass on the site.

Monty

[Phil H]

I think Harold has a mixed reputation in britain.

When I was much younger (closer to 1966) he was a hero of mine. Less so now.

I think it may in part be that we start our popular history (unjustifiably IMHO) with William I and count our kings and queens from him. Edward the Confessor should arguably be Edward I (but he is not!!).

I'll check up in my reference books on royal burials re Harold and let you know.

There is some doubt now that Harold was hit in the eye, though his body appears to have been hacked to pieces by Norman knights (possibly including William himself. Harold was probably castrated when he fell.

Phil

[Phil H]

Great pics Monty - the objective of the current dig is...?

Phil

[Monty]

To obtain as much information as possible before the visitors centre is built on top of it and establish the context of the burials there including Richards.

Monty

[Sally]

Phil,

Harold is probably shown with an arrow in his eye in the Bayeux Tapestry to indicate that he was an oath breaker (well, according to the victorious Billy et al).

A bit of contemporary symbolism that would've been appreciated at the time.

[Phil H]

I believe that recent work on the UNDERSIDE of the embroidery has revealed that the stitching restored as the arrow (in the C19th?) might actually be a spear, which the figure is throwing, not being hit by.

It is all subjective, not least because the words "Hic Harold interfectus est" (or similar) are written above two figures - one with the arrow, another being hacked down by a horseman. Which is Harold - or are both?

Good to see you again, Sally.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Thanks for explaining the possible symbolism of that arrow in the eye in the Bayeaux Tapistry. I read a book called "1066" by a historian named David Haworth (I think that was his last name) two decades ago, and he did mention the messier ending Harold may have endured (i.e. the castration). However he could not conclude which was the actual fate of the monarch.

Actually if the history of England were taught properly it would have to center initially on the warring kingdoms like Mercia and Northumbria, and perhaps discuss the Arthur legend and reach it's first pinacle with Alfred the Great. Edward the Confessor would be the conclusion of the period. You are right that he should be Edward I, but he is (after all) England's only monarch to be raised to sainthood.

Jeff

[Phil H]

The odd thing is that Edward the Confessor appears to have been a somewhat unholy man. It was later that he was touted as a saint.

If anything he may have been homosexual - though there are other explanations, weak and vengeful. All those years in exile must have left him very mixed up, as did the murder of his brother.

The problem with the post-Roman/pre-Conquest period is that the evidence is often problematic even if it exists at all. Ok - the "Dark Ages" are less dark than they used to be, but much of the period relies on the interpretation of archaeological discoveries rather than true records. Important men like Athelstan remain enigmatic. Alfred is something on an exception.

I am a long-standing enthusiast for the Arthurian period, yet it is increasingly difficult to get a handle on it. The most recent book takes the line that the whole idea of Saxon invasions is wrong and that there is simply no place for Arthur to fit as there were no wars of the type some (all later) sources predicate.

It means that teaching such a period below sixth form or undergraduate level would be difficult - though it would be useful in indicating that ALL history is really based on perception and interpretation.

David Howarth was a good writer - he also did volumes on Waterloo and Trafalgar which are well worth reading. A more recent good book on 1066 is by Frank McLynn, and I enjoyed Marc Morris's recent The Norman Conquest (now out in p/back in the UK).

Phil

[Phil H]

Harold

I promised I'd give chapter and verse on Harold's burial place.

According to Clifford Brewer's "The Death of Kings" the dead king's mutilated body was taken to Waltham Abbey (my mistake in regard to Walthamstow!)

Prayers were offered for his soul at Battle Abbey.

Brewer also records a legend that Harold survived and was helped from the field. he notes that the wounding by the arrow was alleged to have happened around noon, while the Saxons continued to fight until sunset - which might suggest the king was alive even though wounded.

Mark Duffy, in "Royal Tombs of Medieval England", notes initial burial overlooking the sea and then a later reburial at Waltham. The likely grave site (in part of the church demolished in 1544) is marked by a (modern) slab.

Duffy also says that there is a tradition that Harold was buried at Bosham Church (near Portsmouth) In 1954 a stone coffin was unearthed containing male bones - a pelvis and left femur (which showed signs of an unhealed fractrure).

These have been ascribed to Harold's father, Earl Godwin, but the Chronichle says he was buried at Winchester. Could the injury then mean that the bones belong to Harold?

So I think the conclusion is - who knows. But my money would be on Waltham Abbey. A C14th source says the original tomb there bore a king's image and an inscription naming Harold.

I attach some pics of the modern memorial at Waltham and a pic from ebay apparently of a fragment of the original tomb. (I have no way of knowing how authentic that is.)

Phil

[Sally]

Hello Phil,

The Bayeux Tapestry: Harold is likely both figures - a symbolic and a real death. It's worth remembering who was responsible for the tapestry. It depicted what William wanted it to, told the story that suited him. It is not an unbiased record. Blinding was indisputably a punishment for oath breaking - there are many examples. It clearly has biblical connotations. There are some surprisingly late examples in folklore. I always thought it would make an interesting study.

Alfred: Best not to believe everything we read about him. My conclusion, after he dominated my life for an entire year during my undergraduate degree (That's what happens when you elect to study the 9th century at university - that and a whole lot of Vikings). Alfred was a highly intelligent man who modelled his kingship on that of Charlemagne, was keen to suppress the reign of Offa, who probably was on a par with Charlemagne, and understood that the written word becomes the truth.

Edward was holy mainly because of the vast amount of land that he gave to the Church, most of it shortly before his death.

Politics eh?

Happy to see you here Phil, always a pleasure.

[Phil H]

The Bayeux Tapestry: Harold is likely both figures - a symbolic and a real death.

I don't disagree, but I think the point is (quite) hotly debated.

Offa I think is beginning to emerge from obscurity. Not a pleasant man I think, but a significant and probably great one.

The Wessex dynasty had a deep interest in writing history to show the inevitability of its rise to supremacy and overlordship.

Parts of the period I find fascinating, not least the almost Lady Macbeth-like figure of Queen Emma (the confessor's mother) who used her sex to great advantage to maintain her position.

Phil

[Phil H]

King Harold some links

These might be of interest:

http://www.bosham.org/chichester/about-bosham-kings-burial-c-3_40.html

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10216948.New_call_to_identify____Harold___s_remains___/

the second article contains an idea that Harold's body might have been divided between Waltham and Bosham - who knows.

Phil