Mary I: Her Mother's Daughter

by Samantha Wilcoxson

Katherine of Aragon as the Madonna
painted by Michael Sittow

We all inherit a few habits and characteristics from our mothers – for better or worse. This is no less true for Queen Mary I and her mother Katherine of Aragon. The interesting thing about the similarities between these women is that one is remembered rather fondly and with great sympathy, while the other has been branded with the label ‘Bloody Mary.’

Katherine is widely admired for her refusal to back down when Henry VIII decided to set her aside. A bold combination of stubbornness and faith gave Katherine the strength to remain steadfast, regardless of what Henry put her through. She was never disrespectful, often saying that she would honor her husband’s will in all things, save where her conscience demanded that she followed God. Similar words would be used by her daughter. Henry appreciated the sentiment from neither.

Mary stood up to her father, much as her mother had, continuing to proclaim her love and respect for him while at the same time demanding that no title besides Princess was appropriate for her. Henry had long separated Mary from her mother, but she had her governess, Margaret Pole the Countess of Salisbury, at her side to bolster her up (at least until that great lady’s execution in 1541). The two of them refused Henry’s request for Mary’s royal jewels and denied Anne Boleyn’s status as queen.

Henry decided to break up Mary’s household in order to bring her into line. Margaret Pole was crushed to have Mary removed from her care and offered to cover all household expenses if Mary was left with her. Henry refused and instead forced Mary to serve in the household of her infant half-sister. This time may have seemed like the nadir of Mary’s life, but the knowledge of her mother’s courage in even worse circumstances gave her the strength to go on.

Katherine of Aragon
1st Queen of Henry VIII

After Henry’s death, Mary's life changed, but the challenges did not cease. With young Edward VI surrounded by reformist advisors, the faith that had seen Mary through tough times put her at odds with the brother she loved. Katherine had given Mary an example in this as well. When faith was all that Katherine had left, abandoned by her husband and her health failing, she had demonstrated to her daughter that it was all she needed. Mary also clung to her faith, having mass held within her household long after it was outlawed by Edwardian statutes. She was prepared to be a martyr for her faith.

Mary probably had not expected to be queen once she had a brother so many years younger than herself. Yet, when Edward died in 1553, Mary proved that she had inherited the strength of a true queen from her mother. Katherine had never doubted that Mary should be Henry’s heir and that he had no need for a son. Henry had clearly disagreed, but Mary’s chance came anyway.

Both Katherine and Mary could be submissive and pious, believing deeply in the specific roles that God had assigned to them. However, they could each be bold and courageous when they believed God’s will was being thwarted. Katherine proved this when she served as regent for Henry in the war against Scotland and in the battle for her marriage, and Mary proved it in her journey to the throne.

Queen Mary I
Daughter of Katherine of Aragon

Few anticipated any serious challenge from the Lady Mary when the council schemed to place her cousin, Lady Jane Grey, on the throne in her place. Sure, Mary had clung stubbornly to the mass against Edward’s wishes, but she had also done her best to stay away from court and live quietly. Edward’s Devise for the Succession had not had the chance to make its way through Parliament, but it was expected that his sisters could be subdued if necessary. If they thought that they would easily neutralize Henry VIII’s daughters, they were heartily disappointed.

Mary had submitted to many humiliations in her life by this time. She was 37, unmarried and childless, since neither her father or brother wished to legitimize her position or give her the power of a husband at her side. But when it was her turn for the crown, she proved, once again, that she was Katherine of Aragon’s daughter.

As it turned out, she had little opposition. Edward’s councilors may have convinced themselves that Jane would be easily accepted, but the people still had fond memories for the Princess Mary and sympathy for her shoddy treatment. Jane’s reign was ended within a fortnight, and Mary was queen, just as her mother always knew she would be.

Additional Reading
Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen by Anna Whitelock
The First Queen of England by Linda Porter
The Children of Henry VIII by Alison Weir

All images in the public domain through Wikimedia Commons
~~~~~~~~~~

Samantha Wilcoxson is the author of the Plantagenet Embers Trilogy. Queen of Martyrs, the final installment in the series was recently released featuring Queen Mary I.

An incurable bibliophile and sufferer of wanderlust, Samantha lives in Michigan with her husband and three teenagers. You can connect with her on her blog or on Facebook, Twitter, and Goodreads. 

Eustache the Monk - Medieval Outlaw or Hero?

by Lana Williams

As with many tales of old, whether the protagonist is an outlaw or hero depends on the view of the one telling the story. Such is the case with Eustache the Monk, a manuscript written in Old French between 1223 and 1284. While the author’s identity remains in question, the story is known to be based on a real person, Eustache Busquet, who was born in Northern France in 1170 and died in 1217.

Eustache lived an extraordinary life. He trained as a knight, then as a seaman, and traveled to Spain to study black magic, though no evidence technically supports this. The story embellishes his deeds, telling readers how Eustache and his companions got into a fight in a tavern and cast a magic spell and made the tavern keeper and her customers strip naked, straddle wine casts, and get a bit crazy. Or maybe that should be a lot crazy. Eustache continues his journey and casts another spell on a man driving a cart and makes the cart and horse appear to go backwards.

Soon after, he joined a Benedictine abbey at the age of 20 and wreaked havoc there by casting more spells. The monks eat when they should be fasting, go barefoot when they should wear shoes, and swear when they’re supposed to be silent. He also casts a spell on a side of bacon, changing it into an old ugly woman which frightens the cook. Eustache remained at the monastery until his father was murdered by a man named Hainfrois de Heresinghen.

As with any good son, Eustache left the monastery to demand justice from his father’s overlord, the Count of Boulogne, for his father’s murder. A judicial duel was arranged, but alas, Eustache’s champion lost. Apparently the count was impressed with Eustache, for he appointed him seneschal for an expedition with King Philip of France to win back territories in Normandy which King John of England held. Unfortunately, Eustache’s enemy, de Heresinghen, returned to the picture and accused Eustache of mismanaging the finances of the expedition, convincing the count as well.

Eustache suspected treachery and fled into the forests near Boulogne. The count, displeased with Eustache, seized his properties and burned his fields. That is when the story grows even more interesting. Eustache began to methodically harass the count, his allies, and his soldiers. The story tells of Eustache leading a band of up to 30 men, as well as operating alone, often in disguise. As the story progresses, Eustache moves from casting spells to using trickery and deception instead. While this period of outlawry was brief as it lasted only a year, it takes up the majority of the story. Not so different from the action movies at the theaters these days!

Leaving his homeland, Eustache wandered the English Channel where he acted as a pirate, eventually offering his services as a mariner to King John. As a reward, Eustache is given lands in Swaffham, Norfolk. Soon after, while he still served King John, he acted as English ambassador to the Count of Boulogne. That did not go well though, for as soon as King Philip learned of his return to France, he outlawed him.

In London in 1212, the Count of Boulogne was able to negotiate a charter of allegiance with King John. Again fearing treachery, Eustache fled, this time back to France where he joined King Philip. Nothing like changing allegiances as circumstances dictate. In 1214, King John was faced with a rebellion of his English barons, and Eustache was said to have supplied them with arms. Needless to say, King John was less than pleased and seized the lands he’d previously given Eustache in Norfolk.

Over the next few years, Eustache continued to control the English Channel and to support the English barons. He provided transport to Prince Louis of France to the Isle of Thanet during the Baron’s War. Alas, his ship was later attacked by four English ships. They captured him and beheaded him immediately in August of 1217.

Despite his time as an outlaw, Eustache was supported by his family and friends, suggesting he was worthy of loyalty, a heroic quality for certain. The story written about him tells of the code by which he lived. Following such rules is also a quality we can admire and suggests chivalric behavior. He rewarded those who were truthful and loyal to him. If someone betrayed him, they were killed but he did release some adversaries unharmed. If someone lied to him about the amount of money they had on their person, they were robbed. However, if a person told the truth about the amount of money they had, they were allowed to keep it.

There are similarities in Eustache the Monk’s story to Robin Hood and other ‘good outlaw’ legends. Eustache was of noble birth, he set out to avenge his father’s murder, and he lived by his own version of chivalry. However, the story also contains rather shocking cruelties which put the term ‘hero’ in question. He forces a young man to twist his own rope from which to hang. When several of his men have their eyes gouged out, he retaliates by chopping off the feet of four of the culprit’s men. He tortures another person in a mud pit. There’s also a passage in the story of Eustache disguising himself as a prostitute, humiliating the count’s man, and taunting him for trying to sodomize a monk. None of those acts seem heroic.

As with all great heroes and villains/outlaws, there are shades of gray in both characters and real people, some darker than others. Often it is how we authors tell the story as to what the reader decides.

For additional information on Eustache the Monk, I recommend: Ohlgren, Thomas H., Medieval Outlaws, Sutton Publishing, United Kingdom, 1998 and http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/eustache-the-monk-introduction


This post is an Editors' Choice post and was first published on 12th Sep 2013


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lana Williams is the author of medieval romances intertwined with mystery and a pinch of paranormal, including A Vow To Keep, Trust In Me, and Believe In Me, all part of The Vengeance Trilogy. More information about her books is on her website.
Amazon US
Amazon UK

Planning a Regency Ball

by Maria Grace

Most of us have, at some time or another been called upon to host an event. The frenzy, stress and excitement are familiar to us all, as is the way they all increase with the size and importance of the event--which helps explain the modern bridezilla phenomenon, but I digress.

An event like the Netherfield Ball of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice would have been the biggest, most important event of the social season. Obviously, it would have taken a great deal to pull it off. But what does that really look like?

First, in almost all cases, it was the job of the hostess to plan the event. Modern event planners did not exist, so the hostess, working with her housekeeper, cook and other staff, would have the full weight of the event on her shoulders. Her reputation and standing among her peers could be profoundly affected by the success (or lack there of) of the event.

Time and Place

As in event planning today, hostesses had to decide on a time and place for the event. Typically a ball would begin at 8pm and continue to the wee hours of the morning, sometimes even until sunrise. So that convention made that choice rather easy. Picking a date though involved some considerations irrelevant to modern event planners.

Since guests would have to travel to the event, a hostess needed to make certain that it was scheduled during the week of the full moon. Since roadways were not otherwise lit, sufficient moonlight was necessary to permit travel to the ball. Often torches were placed outside the front doors and perhaps even on the drive up to the house, but beyond that, the roads were entirely dark.

A ball also required an appropriate location. Based on my own experience, a group of twenty couples dancing plus musicians would require at least a 20x60 foot space (roughly 7x20 meters.) In addition to the ballroom, a proper formal event called for a supper room, two retiring (dressing) rooms for ladies and gentlemen to change their shoes and remove their wraps, and ideally a card room.

If guests had long distances to travel, they might require overnight accommodations. Sufficient guest rooms would need to be prepared to accommodate planned guests and the inevitable one or two who, by the end of the evening, managed to get themselves too drunk to send home safely.

Invitations

Once a date and location are set, invitations must be issued. Typically these would be printed by the local printer, with the date and time of the event. Alternately, invitations could be handwritten--remember this would be with a quill and ink, no ball point pens! The host and hostess would then hand deliver the invitations, a task that would require a least a full day to accomplish.

That done, it is time to plan the venue arrangements. First up, lighting.

Lighting

Electricity makes that pretty simple and straightforward today. (Ok, I'm ducking because I know enough sound and lighting engineers to know that it isn't really that simple, but seriously, guys, electricity makes all the difference.) Full moon might help with the outdoor lighting issues, but inside is another matter altogether. For that, we need candles, lots and lots of candles.

And naturally, candles are expensive, especially wax candles. Tallow (rendered animal fat--which is now a source for biodiesel) might be good enough at other times, but the smell rendered it undesirable for a high class event. Beeswax candles would be the prefered lighting method.

Candles were produced in 4, 6, and 8 hour lengths. So a hostess would purchase candles designed to last for the entire event rather than ones which would need to be replaced during the evening. A large scale event could require up to 300 candles, costing upwards of 15 pounds---a year's wages for a maid! 

Decoration

Mirrors usually filled rooms used for formal events. Though attractive, their use was more practical than stylistic. Mirrors multiplied candlelight, so did shiny glass, crystal and polished metals, making them ideal for decorating. The problem with shiny things is, of course, that they don't stay shiny on their own. So lots of polishing and cleaning would have to be done in preparation for an event. That often meant hiring additional maids to help in the process.

Flowers, from the garden or hot house made up the primary decorations for an event. Not only did they bring in lots of color, but their fragrance could help mask some of the less pleasant aromas of a great number of people exerting themselves in dance in a relatively small space.

In addition, an artist would be hired to decorate the dance floor with chalked images. Though the dancers would destroy the images dancing over them, their purpose was more significant than mere decoration. The chalk helped provide the dancers with much needed traction on the slippery dance floors.

Musicians

Since recorded music and a DJ was definitely not an option, a ball required musicians. How many would largely depend on the depth of a hostess' pockets.

In some houses and assembly rooms, musicians might be situated in balconies, stair landings or niches, out of the path of the dancers. In less noble settings, they might share a crowded floor with the dancers.

Unlike dance music today which might last as long as maybe 10 minutes (maybe), dance sets at a regency era ball would last up to an hour each. Not surprisingly, both dancers and musicians took much needed breaks between the sets.

Food

Between the dances, servants would circulate among the dancers with trays of ices and iced punch to help them cool down and fortify themselves for the next dance of the evening. Keep in mind though, punch was no child's drink in the era, it was heavily fortified with rum, brandy and wine. A hostess would have to lay in a stout supply of both ice and alcohol to make it through the evening.

In the middle of the ball, dancers would break for supper. Typically this was served sometime between 11 pm and 1 am. Soup, especially white soup (made from veal or chicken stock, egg yolks, ground almonds and cream) served with negus (sugar mixed with water and wine, served hot) were staples and ball suppers. But that was far from the complete menu.

Today we think of meals as an entree and a couple of side dishes, maybe with a starter salad or soup, and a dessert. Maybe five dishes and we call it done. A couple more than that and we would feel like it was a pretty high class meal. That would never fly in the regency era.

Meals, particularly formal meals were enormous affairs with many, many dishes required for each course. A ball could easily require sixty--no that's no mistake, I really did mean 60--different dishes, both sweet and savory.

If that's not enough to wrap your head around, think about this. How difficult is it to manage getting a big holiday meal out to the family, with all the dishes ready (and hot) at the same time? I love to cook holiday meals, and typically for Thanksgiving I will make three meats, three starches, six vegetables and a couple of deserts. Call it fourteen dishes.

You can ask my family, every year, everything is done and on the table at the same time. They will also tell you that the entire thing is planned out with the precision of a military exercise, down to what appliances and serving dishes will be used, a detailed time table, broken down in fifteen minute increments specifying exactly what should be done--and by whom--during that time, and, yes, back-up plans in case something goes sideways. The family laughs at me--after they enjoy their dinner.

Insane as all that is, now imagine doing that without refrigeration, gas or electric stoves and ovens, and electric appliances. Let that sink in just a moment. What kind of planning would have to go into the menu to manage not to overtax one kitchen resource or another, and get it all out in time. The mind simply boggles. Just consider what it took to make White Soup.

White Soup

Put a knuckle of veal into six quarts of water, with a large fowl, and a pound of lean bacon; half a pound of rice, two anchovies, a few peppercorns,a bundle of sweet herbs, two or three onion, and three or four heads of celery cut in slices.

Stew them all together, till the soup be as strong as you would have it, and strain it through a hair sieve into a clean earthen pot.

Having let it stand all night, the next day take off the scum, and pour it clear off into a tossing-pan.

Put in half a pound of Jordan almonds beat fine, boil it a little, and run it through a lawn sieve. Then put in a pint of cream, and the yolk of an egg, and send it up hot.

John Farley, The London Art of Cookery, 1783.


No wonder private balls like these were considered the highlight of the social season and so much preferable to public events. As much as they were anticipated, though, I have to imagine hostesses were also very relieved when they were over.

~~~~~~~~~~

Though Maria Grace has been writing fiction since she was ten years old, those early efforts happily reside in a file drawer and are unlikely to see the light of day again, for which many are grateful.

After penning five file-drawer novels in high school, she took a break from writing to pursue college and earn her doctorate. After 16 years of university teaching, she returned to her first love, fiction writing.

Click here to find her books on Amazon. For more on her writing and other Random Bits of Fascination, visit her website. You can also like her on Facebook, or follow on Twitter.

English Historical Fiction Authors now on Twitter!

We are delighted to announce that we now have a dedicated Twitter account, where we will be sharing not only the daily posts and weekly round-ups, but also archive posts too.

Click on the link to follow us - we'd love to see you there!

EHFA on Twitter

Editor's Weekly Round-Up, April 9, 2017

by the EHFA Editors

We hope you follow us regularly, but just in case - here's a round up for the week ending April 8:

The History of English Part II: From Conquest to Printing Press

by Annie Whitehead

Robin Hood: A Fictional Journey

by NB Dixon

The Almost Forgotten Battle
by Chris Bishop

We also have a giveaway available
until Sunday - today - at midnight (PST)

Giveaway: Heir of Locksley by NB Dixon

NB Dixon

Sign up for a chance to win a copy of the book

The (Almost) Forgotten Battle

by Chris Bishop

If you asked most people to name the most important battles ever fought on British soil the chances are that the Battle of Hastings would rank high on their list.  The battle most likely to be omitted altogether is the one which had an equally significant impact on all our lives and which few people have even heard of – the Battle at Ethandune in 878.

Progress of the Great Heathen Army
Image by Hel-hama - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

The relevance of this conflict reaches deep into English culture for had King Alfred not triumphed there, virtually the whole of England would have been under Viking rule and Alfred himself either executed or slain.  Had that occurred, many of the hugely important events which followed would simply not have happened – including quite possibly the Battle of Hastings itself given that the Vikings had such close ties with the Normans.  More importantly, we would have been denied many of Alfred’s very significant achievements - this includes the beginnings of the unification of England and cultural changes such as having important books translated and rewritten in English so they could be more readily understood (even though few people could read at that time).  He also set about creating a stronghold of fortified Burghs and establishing the beginnings of a navy as a way of securing a period of relative and much needed peace.  That is not to say that England as a whole was suddenly free from the threat of invasion or further Viking raids, but he used the respite his victory gave him to instigate administrative and legal reforms which meant a much fairer system for all, many of which are still relevant today.

So, what do we know about this important battle?  The answer is not very much.  We’re not even sure exactly where it took place except that it was probably close to a place called Edington and is therefore sometimes called ‘The Battle of Edington.’  My own interpretation of events is as follows:-
The background to the story is that having been defeated in a surprise attack on his Vill at Chippenham soon after Christmas, Alfred retreated with the remnants of his army to hide out in the desolate marshes at Athelney.  It is from this miserable and wretched period that many of the stories about Alfred emanate -  such as the burning of the cakes and the contention that he disguised himself as a wandering minstrel and actually returned to Chippenham to learn what he could of the Vikings plans – (surely an unlikely proposition given that he would have been so well known to his enemies?).  What we do know is that by Easter Alfred had managed to rally his men in sufficient numbers to strike back and win a decisive Victory at the battle of Ethandune which then secured his realm of Wessex.

England in 878 - Image Hel-Hama

Some records suggest that the Vikings, led by Lord Guthrum, held the ridge at Ethandune thereby forcing the Saxons to charge uphill.  If so, Alfred still won the day amidst terrible slaughter on both sides. I have to say I think there is an element of propaganda in this contention as, in my view, Alfred is likely to have arrived at Edington first and would therefore have had the opportunity to choose his ground.  As a skilled and experienced commander, he would surely have positioned himself on the high ground and thus held the advantage of the field.  Remember that Guthrum was safely ensconced in Chippenham (in Alfred’s own Vill) and would not have expected Alfred to have the ability to raise anything like an army after such a devastating defeat only a few months earlier. Guthrum would have therefore felt no need to rush into the battle, hoping Alfred’s men would disperse to tend their farmsteads after a long hard winter. Perhaps the suggestion that the Saxons fought uphill was a way emphasising what a great victory they achieved and what a great leader they’d found in Alfred?

To my mind, the greatest mystery of all was how Alfred, having been virtually annihilated at Chippenham, managed to raise anything resembling an army so quickly.  It would have helped that the battle was fought at Easter as this would have done much to rouse the deeply religious Saxons given that Alfred, having gone into hiding, was believed by many to have been slain or fled abroad.  Thus his reappearance at such a crucial time must have been seen as some sort of resurrection in itself, something which would have helped to stir many loyal Saxons into action even though, by then, most people probably craved peace above all else.  Also, the Saxons had their backs to the wall and so some may have felt they had nothing to lose – after all, they were fighting not just for themselves but for their freedom, their religion and for their whole way of life.  It is also said that Alfred claimed to have the support of St Cuthbert who was a much revered and well-loved saint.  A visitation by St Cuthbert may well have seemed believable to many given that his body had been disinterred and moved to keep his remains safe from Viking hands.  If no longer at rest, it would have been easy and heartening for them to think of the goodly saint supporting the Saxon cause.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect to grasp is how Alfred managed to defeat the dreaded Vikings.

Typical battle tactics would have involved a shield wall and desperate hand to hand combat – but on foot, not horseback, for at that time most warriors didn’t ride into battle.  Ironically, a charge on horseback was used against the Saxons at the Battle of Hastings to devastating effect – but that’s another story!

So who were these fearsome Vikings?  Well it would be wrong to think of a race of people who had nothing better to do than raid, rape and pillage.  For a start, the ‘Vikings’ who attacked our shores were probably second sons with no land to inherit, outcasts, men banished for crimes and – quite likely – a good number of adventurers.  Indeed the word Viking is actually a verb which means to go ‘a Viking’ rather than the name of a group of people.

Although sea farers by inclination, it took skill and courage to cross the North Sea in an open boat, so what was it that lured them to risk these dangers and sail to our shores?  Plunder is an obvious answer but, more likely, they also wanted land – hence Alfred’s plan whereby having secured victory, he ceded areas to them so long as they didn’t trouble him again.  None of this should diminish the image of battle hardened warriors who carried out some brutal attacks, choosing the fat monasteries as readily as the homes of ordinary people, usually with much bloodshed.  But these were brutal times – war was conducted very much up close and personal, with hand to hand combat being the norm.  It was also a very dangerous occupation because even minor wounds received whilst fighting might well become infected and therefore cause an agonising death sometime later.

Favourite weapons for the Saxons would have been a spear and/or a bow, items readily available to them for use when hunting.  Only the very wealthy men would have possessed a sword but quite a few would have carried a seaxe – a short singled edged sword ideal for use at such close quarters that there was little room to wield anything larger.  Logically, those in the second rank of the shield wall might have used longer handled spears to keep the Vikings at bay, though once the enemy got between these the spears would have been all but useless. A great many projectiles would have been used by both sides – arrows, javelins, throwing axes etc - but, for the Vikings particularly, the favourite weapon was probably various types of axe as these could be used to haul aside a shield and inflict terrible injuries, cutting through mail, flesh and bone.  In reality, there was probably nothing which could be described as ‘standard kit’ on either site – everyone just carrying whatever weapons they had.

Given the ferocity of the weaponry, mail vests and helmets might seem a good idea to us but they would not have been available to everyone, regardless of which side they were on.  That said they would doubtless have protected themselves as best they could with padded jackets, leather caps, gloves and such like.

So, all in all, a pretty vicious affair with a high body count and some dreadful wounds. Which brings me to the question of how they dealt with the wounded.  It might seem an anathema to us, but I suggest that warriors would have put their own badly wounded comrades to the knife rather than let them suffer a slow and lingering death - leaving their enemies to die in agony.  I confess I have no firm evidence to support this, though in my view it does make sense at a time when life was cheap, short and often pretty wretched.  That is not to say that they lacked any ability to tend their wounds for we know of many cures, not all of them entirely effective but nonetheless capable of bringing an element of relief.  Some we would find quite strange – for example, where an amputation was required, some accounts suggest that the Vikings would force the hapless victim to drink a strong broth made of leeks and herbs and the next day they would sniff the wound and, if they could smell the leeks emanating from it, the man was deemed to have little chance of survival.  What they would do then would depend on who he was or who is friends were as much as anything else.  One thing is for certain, whilst on a raid there would be little scope for carrying a wounded man without a very good reason for doing so.

Memorial to the Battle of Ethandune - Image Trish Steel

The last question is why, if battles were so brutal and so dangerous, would anyone in their right mind want to get involved in one?  The incentive for the Vikings has already been mentioned but as for the Saxons, many were sworn to support their Ealdorman and so had little choice.  They would have been trained by the Fyrd in at least the rudiments of combat though were probably no match for a fully fledged or experienced warrior.  They would have donned what war gear they had (probably passed down to them or scavenged from a previous battle), picked up whatever weapon came to hand and followed their Lord into battle.  That was the way of things then and most people had little option but to do as they were ordered.

The Battle of Ethandune itself was said to have lasted most of the day – pretty exhausting stuff when you think of wielding a heavy weapon whilst fighting at such close quarters.  Alfred’s forces eventually prevailed and the Vikings retreated to Chippenham where they were besieged for 10 days before surrendering.  Alfred must have had enough men to then surround the settlement which shows just how large the force was that he managed to muster.  This in itself is surprising given how little time he had to summon his army, particularly given that the battle took place in the Spring when many men would have been needed to tend the land so not everyone would have been available to fight.  Either way, Guthrum had not prepared himself for a siege otherwise he might have held out long enough for Alfred’s men, already laden with the booty stripped from the dead and dying Vikings, to have dispersed and returned to their long-neglected lands.

So, when Guthrum at last surrendered, the ‘almost’ forgotten battle ended – a major triumph for Alfred which led eventually to the Treaty of Wedmore and an extremely important outcome for the English.  No wonder Alfred is the only English King (indeed one of the few men in history) to be afforded the title ‘Great’, an epithet he well deserved.

~~~~~~~~~~

Chris Bishop is the author of Blood and Destiny, a novel based on the events leading up to the Battle of Ethandune.  It is his first book and forms part of a series entitled The Shadow of the Raven.

Robin Hood: A Fictional Journey

By NB Dixon

Ever since his story first appeared, the folk hero, Robin Hood, has delighted and fascinated the minds of people all over the world. I remember as if it were yesterday when I first discovered it, tucked away in a corner of the school library. It captured my imagination and has stayed with me ever since. It’s a testament to his endurance that his story has survived for several centuries, and has undergone many different interpretations.

Douglas Fairbanks as Robin Hood with the sword
as depicted in older ballads 

The first written accounts of Robin Hood are in ballads. These ballads interestingly state his home in Barnsdale forest, not Sherwood, and set his story during the reign of King Edward II, rather than Richard the Lionheart, the King most closely associated with Robin. So, at what point did the story move from Barnsdale forest to Sherwood? When was Edward II replaced by Richard the Lionheart? Were these stories in fact based on real men? It seems we are destined not to know for sure, but these aren’t the only discrepancies in the Robin Hood legend. In the early ballads he is a peasant. In later versions of the story, he’s a nobleman who returns from the crusade to find his lands have been taken. This was actually a common practice. When knights were away on crusade, their lands were often seized by their enterprising neighbours. If the knight had not been heard from in seven years, he was considered to be dead. Often the poor men would return to find their homes were in the possession of another. They might appeal to the law for justice, but as the justice system moved slowly, they were often forced to turn to outlawry as a means of survival.

A knight named Fulk Fitzwarren lost his lands during a quarrel with King Richard’s brother, John, a king whom Robin Hood has a notoriously rocky relationship with. While Fulk Fitzwarren was indeed a real person who became an outlaw for a time and rebelled against King John before eventually having his lands returned to him and becoming a loyal servant to the King, a good deal of romance has sprung up around his story. There are parallels between it and the Robin Hood legend.

Robin becomes kinder once he is a nobleman. He steals only from the rich to give to the poor. Some sceptics have argued that this was nothing more than a piece of propaganda to make the peasant class think more kindly of the nobles who governed their lives.

The first book in which Robin Hood appears as the hero, though it is not in fact his first appearance in a novel, is Howard Pyle’s The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood. This book very much softens Robin Hood’s hard edges. He is a kind and cheerful man as opposed to a hardened thug. Many other novels have portrayed Robin with this “traditional image”, although modern interpretations have returned to the grittier, and some would argue, more realistic portrayal of a band of outlaws trying to survive the brutality that was life in medieval England.

There are what one might call traditions in the story. Most people know of Robin’s prowess with the bow. It’s even acknowledged in an inscription on the stone purportedly marking his grave. One of the most often told tales of Robin is how he entered an archery contest under the nose of the Sheriff of Nottingham and won a silver (or sometimes golden) arrow by splitting his opponent’s arrow in two. Two other adventures that crop up in most versions of the tail are Robin’s meeting with Little John, when they embark on a battle with quarterstaffs on a bridge halfway across a stream, which ends in Robin’s defeat and thereby seals the friendship between the two men. His meeting with the priest, Friar Tuck, where Robin forces the Friar to carry him across a stream and the Friar then orders Robin to do the same for him is also a recurring theme.

Robin and Little John with quarterstaffs

Some newer versions of the story of Robin Hood do stand out as brave interpretations, and can even be said to have influenced other authors. The TV series, Robin of Sherwood, first broadcast in the early 1980s, adds a fantasy element to the story. It combines the legend of the famous outlaw with actual historical events and characters and the pagan beliefs of the time. Robin Hood is in fact the servant of Hern the Hunter, a mythical spirit who dwells in the Forest. Since some theories have it that Robin is in fact a spirit or a green man rather than an actual human, perhaps it’s this that gave the creator of the series his idea. Robin of Sherwood remains one of the most loved of the recent interpretations of the legend.

More recently still, the radio series, simply entitled, Hood, turns the legend completely upside down. The Sheriff of Nottingham, usually Robin Hood’s arch enemy, is in fact the hero of the story. He is forced to take on the alias of Robin Hood, and it remains a millstone round his neck for the rest of the series.

As for Robin Hood’s sexuality, it was Professor Stephen Thomas Knight who first suggested that the legend of Robin Hood carried homosexual undertones. In Howard Pyle’s novel, the men embrace and sometimes kiss one another with no visible sign of awkwardness or embarrassment. Throughout every stage of Robin’s evolution as a character, the devotion to his men, and theirs to him, remains the focal point of the story.

In an ever-evolving culture such as ours, it was probably inevitable that someone would place a homosexual interpretation on the legend of Robin. The notion of a man who on the outside was the valiant hero and saviour of the poor, while struggling with inner demons, is intriguing.

In Medieval times, homosexuality was regarded not only as unnatural, but as a crime that could sometimes be punishable by death. It was considered an affront against nature and against God. Many men would have tried to conceal their nature, perhaps by getting married and locking away that part of themselves.

Marian has also evolved as a character. She isn’t in the earliest tales at all, and in many novels, is barely worthy of a mention. Recently, however, she has assumed a much more prominent part, even upstaging Robin on occasion. She has evolved from a weak damsel in distress to a feisty woman in her own right. There have even been some novels written from her perspective.

Robin and Marian

Robin continues to evolve as a character through the medium of novels, radio and TV. It is likely he will continue to fascinate us for many more years to come.

[all images are in the public domain via Wikipedia]

NB is giving away an e-book (worldwide) and a paperback (UK only) of Heir of Locksley. (Closes Sunday 9th April 2017)

~~~~~~~~~~

N.B. Dixon is an author of historical fiction. Her love for the Robin Hood legend began in a neglected corner of the school library and has continued ever since. She is a self-confessed bookworm and also a musician. She began work on the Outlaws Legacy Series in 2013, and was accepted by Beaten Track Publishing in 2016.

Outlaws Legacy is a historical series based around the Robin Hood legend, taking Robin through his life, rather than just concentrating on his time as an outlaw. What happened before and after? What made him the man he eventually became? This is the focus of Heir of Locksley, the first novel in the Outlaw’s Legacy series. It follows Robin through his childhood and teenage years, and, through a series of events, shapes the man he will become.

Website
Twitter
Facebook
Goodreads

Buy Heir of Locksley UK

Buy Heir of Locksley US

NB Dixon is running a giveaway of Heir of Locksley - until Sunday 9th April 2017 there is a chance to win an e-copy (worldwide) or a paperback (UK only) HERE

Giveaway: Heir of Locksley by NB Dixon

NB Dixon is giving away one e-copy (worldwide) and one paperback copy (UK only) of
Heir of Locksley:

Robin of Locksley is a rebel, more comfortable roaming Sherwood Forest with his longbow and courting the village girls than learning how to run a manor.

An innocent flirtation with a peasant girl soon lands Robin in trouble, and worse, he finds himself inexplicably attracted to Will Scathelock, his best friend since childhood. Robin must decide whether to follow the rules of society or his own conscience.

Meanwhile, his neighbour, Guy of Gisborne, is anxious to get his hands on the Locksley estate and he will do anything to make it happen - even murder.

For a chance to win, leave a comment below. Don't forget to leave your contact details!

Giveaway will close at midnight (Pacific Daylight Time) on Sunday 9th April 2017

The History of English Part II: From Conquest to Printing Press

by Annie Whitehead

The first part of my story of English concluded with the coming of the Normans, and a story from the 12th century sums up what happened after the Normans settled. A local priest witnessed a miracle, where after the laying on of hands, a mute man was cured and able to speak English and French. The priest was resentful. Brother William, he said, had laid hands on this man and instantly he could speak two languages, whereas he, the local priest, had to remain dumb in the presence of the bishop. This priest, it transpired, knew little Latin, and no French.

A page from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

In 1154, the English monks who had written the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (established by Alfred the great) put down their pens. French was the language to speak, and Latin was used for writing and remained the principal language of religion and learning. A visitor from another planet would assume that English disappeared, to be replaced permanently by French.

However, we know this is not so.

A document from c.1100 in which Henry I addresses “All his faithful people, both French and English.” Yet Orderic Vitalis (1074-c.1142), an historian born of a Norman knight and an English mother, complained when he was sent to a monastery in Normandy that he heard “A language [French] that I did not know.”

Imagine a minor Norman knight being given a small manor in the English countryside. Surrounded by English-speaking ‘natives’, he would have to pick up a fair amount of English if he wished to be understood.

Perhaps we can also thank ‘Bad’ King John for the survival of the English Language. His loss of the French territories forced the nobility to choose one or the other. “My brother Amaury” said Simon de Montford, “released to me our brother’s whole inheritance in England, provided that I could secure it; in return I released to him what I had in France.” In 1244 the king of France declared that “As it is impossible that any man living in my kingdom, and having possessions in England, can competently serve two masters, he must either inseparably attach himself to me or to the king of England.”

King John

In the 1230s, Henry III had become the first king of England since 1066 to give distinctively English names to his sons – Edward and Edmund. The eldest son, Edward I, was very conscious of his Englishness, and French gradually became an acquired language. Documents began to be written in English again and during the 100 Years War there was a massive impetus to speak English. Church sermons, prayers and carols were all expressed in English. During the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381, Richard II spoke to the peasants in English.

But English was now what we term Middle English (ME) – a written record of what had been happening for a while in spoken English. An example of how the language was changing is the case of the letter y. In OE (Old English) it represented a short vowel, written by French scribes as u. The OE word mycel became ME muchel, which becomes modern much. When y stood for a long vowel it was written by the French scribes as ui. So the OE fyr becomes the ME fuir and the modern fire. This sound, though, was pronounced differently in different parts of the country, sometimes representing the i in kin, elsewhere (Kent and parts of East Anglia) it was more like the e in merry. In the west it was the oo in mood, but spelt with a u. So the OE for kin, cyn, could be kyn, ken, or kun.

The OE byrgen had ME variants birien, burien, berien and became our modern bury, while using the Kentish pronunciation berry, yet busy has the western spelling but is pronounced as the London/E Midlands bizzy.

The five main speech areas – Northern, West and East Midland, Southern and Kentish are similar to contemporary English speech areas.

The triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London shared the same kind of English, which may be said to have become the basis for Standard English of the modern age.

17th Century depiction of Chaucer

London English came to be exemplified by one man – Geoffrey Chaucer. Choosing to write in English, he brought about the rebirth of English as a National Language. One line from his Troilus and Criseyde shows the journey of the language up to that point:

Criseyde says to Troilus: "Welcome, my knight, my pees, my suffisance."

Welcome, my, and knight, are all English words, although the original OE cniht meant boy, before it became loaded with French military connotations. Peace (pees) is one of the earliest words to come with the conquest, replacing the OE grith. Suffisance, an overblown synonym for satisfaction, is from French, via Latin.

Chaucer’s time also saw another monumental change, with the emergence of surnames. People began to be associated with where they lived (Brooks, Rivers, Hill, and Dale) or their occupation (Butcher, Hunter, Glover, Sadler, Miller, Cooper)

Chaucer wrote in English, but the official language of government was still, for the time being, French. Henry V became the first English king since Harold to use English in official documents, and in the summer of 1415, when he crossed the Channel to fight the French, the first letter he dictated was, symbolically, written in English.

Chaucer Manuscript

English spelling is confusing, as we explored last time, but if you wonder why head doesn't sound like heat, or why steak doesn't rhyme with streak, and some doesn't rhyme with home, you can blame the Great Vowel Shift. Between roughly 1400 and 1700, the pronunciation of long vowels changed. Mice stopped being pronounced meese. House stopped being pronounced like hoose. (Although there is an area near Sheffield where it is pronounced arse*) Some words, particularly words with ea, kept their old pronunciation. Northern English dialects were less affected.

It might reasonably be argued that in some ways the regional dialects of the north remain closer to the original OE or even ON (Old Norse). Melvyn Bragg (A Cumbrian-born broadcaster and writer) overheard someone in a Scandinavian restaurant proclaim “As garn yam” (I’m going home.) To this day, inhabitants of Cumbria would understand this. Cumbrian vowel sounds probably did not shift to the same extent, so that we might still hear someone at Windermere telling us “I’m aboard a boat I bought about a week ago” with vowel sounds that make it seem more like, “As aboard abort about a boot a week sin.”

In other areas of the country, use of words typifies dialect. In the East of England, particularly Norfolk, the word that replaces it at seemingly every opportunity. “Thank you for bringing that book back, I’ll put that back on the shelf.” “That’s now raining.” “That’s a cold wind in the east; that don’t go round you, that go right through you.”

But I digress. English spelling was about to be not standardised, but dictated, by the printers. And here we come back to those spelling anomalies which I mentioned in more detail in Part I.

Ever wondered about the silent middle of words like night and right? In OE, the letter h was used for words like ham (home) and niht (night). This puzzled the French scribes, who couldn’t use a g, which was already in use, nor h, for the same reason. So they compromised with a gh to denote the sound. Although the pronunciation of this sound was dying out (it’s still in use in Scotland nicht/night) the spelling had become established and, crucially, William Caxton used it. His first printed book has a preface dedicated to Philip, Duke of Burgundy, whom he describes as a “Ryght noble, gloryous and myghty prince.”

Brut Chronicle printed by Caxton 1480

Gradually, spelling was falling prey to rules, although it had some way to go. And while French did not ‘take over’, its influence on spelling is clear. OE had a word sinder, meaning the residue left by metal in a furnace, the French had cendre, meaning ashes, and the two fused to become the modern word, cinder.

By the time printing arrived, in the 1470s, the above-mentioned Great Vowel Shift was well underway. Caxton himself lamented the variety of spelling and pronunciation: “And certainly our language varyeth far from that which was used and spoken when I was born.” But with the arrival of printing came a more systemised way of using punctuation marks, but spelling was still quite varied. What printing did do, however, was sound the death knell for the OE letters ‘thorn’ (þ) and ‘eth’ (ð) and ‘yogh’ (Ȝ). Spelling might not yet be standardised, but the alphabet was.


*The Arse that Jack Built - BBC Radio 4

Part I: The Early History of English

Further Reading:
A Little Book of Language – David Crystal
Spell It Out – David Crystal
The Story of English – McCrum, Cran & MacNeil
Whatt Fettle Mun: A Celebration of Cumbrian Dialect – T Barker
Broad Norfolk - J Mardle
A Dictionary of Cumberland Dialect – Richard LM Byers
Concise Oxford Dictionary
Wordcraft – S Pollington

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is an historian and novelist who writes about the Anglo-Saxon era. The author of two award-winning novels set in Anglo-Saxon Mercia, she was also a contributor to 1066 Turned Upside Down, a re-imagining of the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings. She is a member of the Royal Historical Society and an editor of the EHFA blog. Currently she is working on a contribution to a non-fiction book to be published by Pen & Sword Books in the summer of 2017.
Amazon Author Page
Blog
Website
Twitter

Editor's Weekly Round-Up, April 2, 2017

by the EHFA Editors

Did you miss a post this week? Check out our weekly round-up...

Arthur Wellesley - First Duke of Wellington (The Iron Duke)

by Arthur Russell

Horse Heredity in the Dark Ages

by Kim Rendfeld

Finding Love Among the Clauses - a Successful Medieval Marriage
by Anna Belfrage




Before Almack's
by Lauren Gilbert

And a timely post from the archives

April Fool!

by Lauren Gilbert