The Other Serbian Murders

King Alexander and Queen Draga

While searching for current affairs items which could be discussed over the teacups in Flora's drawing room, I discovered the assassination of a royal couple which almost equalled the atrocity of that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Duchess Sophie in Sarajevo on June 28th 1914, which was the catalyst for the start of World War I. These assassinations took place almost ten years before, known as The May Coup, had an equally traumatic effect on the Austro Hungarian relations.

In 19th Century Serbia, a bitter feud existed between two of the country’s leading families; the Obrenovich and Karageorgevich dynasties, both of whom struggled for independence from the Turks. The original Karageorge (‘Black George’) was murdered in 1817 by his rival Milos Obrenovich, who had him killed with an axe and sent his head to the Sultan in Constantinople. During Serbia’s gradual emergence from the Ottoman Empire, the two families alternated as rulers.

The story of King Alexander of Serbia and the woman he chose to be his wife is a classic case of an immature, lonely boy being entranced by an older woman he refused to live without.

Alexander’s Parents

At twenty-two, King Milan Obrenovich I married the beautiful, sixteen-year-old Moldavian, Natalie [Natalija or Nathalie] Keshko. Their only child, Alexander was born a year later. King Milan was an unpopular, autocratic ruler, nor was he a faithful husband. Queen Natalie was reputed to be hot-headed, impulsive and indiscreet. After ten years, they separated and Queen Natalie left Serbia taking ten-year old Prince Alexander, known as Sascha, with her. King Milan removed the Crown Prince from her influence by force, apparently by police while the boy was clinging desperately to his mother. His father took him to Belgrade and took charge of his education.

King Milan I

Sascha was devoted to both his parents, but the influence exercised by his father led to misunderstandings between the boy and his mother, used by both in their quarrels where he was required to side with each in turn.


In 1882 Milan Obrenovich, the reigning prince, declared himself King of Serbia, but abdicated in 1889 and went to live in Paris, leaving his twelve-year-old son Alexander as king under a council of regency.

At sixteen, Alexander proclaimed himself of age, dismissed the regents and their government, abolished his father’s liberal constitution and restored a conservative one, then brought his father Milan, and appointed him commander-in-chief of the Serbian army, though this didn't last and Milan left again.

After a great deal of unpleasant publicity, not to mention the to-ing and fro-ing of each of them between Belgrade and their chosen locations of exile, the King and Queen of Serbia divorced in October 1888, after thirteen years of marriage, although later this was declared illegal. Nathalie was in her twenty-eighth year, and considered one of the most beautiful women in Europe.

Queen Nathalie

Natalie went to live in Biarritz together with her lady-in-waiting, Draga Mašin. Alexander visited the resort and fell in love with Draga. Natalie knew about their affair but took the view that a liaison with an older woman would be good for her son.  However when she discovered how serious the pair were, the hot-headed Nathalie threatened to dismiss Madame Maschin and raged at Sasha, who took his mother's temper with outwardly sullen submission.

Draga [which means ‘dear’ or ‘precious’ in Serbian] Lunjevica, was the daughter of a prominent Serbian family, married an engineer named Svetozar Maschin at fifteen and widowed at eighteen. She had two brothers, Nikola (Nicholas) and Nikodije (Nicodemus) and four sisters, Hristina (Christine), Đina, Ana (Anne) and Vojka.

Draginja Milićević Lunjevica Maschin

Draga was well read, liked poetry, and spoke four languages. She was also a member of the Serbian journalist society having edited and written for Serbian newspapers whilst she served as a lady-in-waiting. She was also flirtatious and had a bad reputation, which may or may not be propaganda put about by the unhappy royals. One story says Draga saved Alexander’s life when he almost drowned in a fountain in the palace gardens.

Dismissed from the Queen’s service, Draga immediately returned to Belgrade, where she acted as King Alexander's adviser, so before long, he felt he could not live without her.

King Milan, alway broke, wanted a wealthy American for his son, and he too was outraged at Sasha's relationship with Draga, a commoner. However, under

the pretext of negotiating his marriage to the German Princess Alexandra zu Schaumburg-Lippe, Alexander sent his father to Karlsbad and Prime Minister Đorđević to Marienbad to sign a contract with Austro-Hungary. As soon as they were gone, Alexander announced his engagement to Draga Mašhin. When his father found out, the furious Milan resigned as commander-in-chief and left Serbia, refusing to return.
Queen Nathalie's hopes for Sasha's future wife included the younger Infanta of Spain. Other Princesses of the reigning Houses of Europe on her list included the Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia, the Princess Sybille of Hesse-Cassel, the Princess Xenia of Montenegro, and more than one of the numerous Archduchesses of Austria.

One may be forgiven in thinking his mother’s love was somewhat blind, as an ex attaché wrote of Alexander:

King 'Sasha' of Serbia

'He is one of the most offensive and displeasing youths that could be found anywhere from the Bosporus to the banks of the Tagus. His manners are course and brutal in the extreme, fully in keeping with his beetling brows, low forehead, and almost bestial nose and jaw, while the opinions which he vouchsafes with regard to women in general are characterized by an affection of cynicism and disillusion that is revolting indeed.’

When the engagement was announced, the entire Đorđević's government resigned and Alexander had difficulty in forming a new cabinet. Alexander had Đorđe Genčić, Minister of the Interior, jailed for seven years for his public condemnation of the engagement. Queen Natalie was subsequently banished from Serbia for expressing her displeasure, the situation finally resolved by Russian Tsar Nicolas Romanov who agreed to be Alexander's honorary best man.

The wedding took place on 23 July 1900; she was thirty-two; he was twenty-three. On hearing that the marriage had taken place Queen Nathalie said:

‘We must hope that this comedy, for I can speak of it by no other name, may not turn into a most fearful tragedy.’

Rumours of Draga’s pregnancy started soon after the wedding, but those in her private circle knew her to be infertile after a youthful accident, which Alexander refused to believe, although the pregnancy did not materialise.

Draga and two of her sisters

Draga was immediately raised to the position of Queen of Serbia, with equal rights to reign with the King. Various institutions founded by Queen Nathalie, and which bore her name were re-named as Queen Draga institutions, and the queen's Serbian regiment was given to her daughter-in-law. These petty acts did nothing to increase the new queen’s popularity. Draga knew this and was terrified her enemies would poison her and had all of her food tasted.

Within a year, Queen Natalie pressured Alexander to divorce Draga, while Draga thought Alexander was being corrupted by power and cared only for himself. Then a story circulated that Draga was trying to get her sister to have a baby and pass it off as her own, and that she had killed her first husband.

Discontented army officers plotted in September 1901 to kill Alexander and Draga with knives dipped in potassium cyanide at a party for the Queen's birthday on 11 September, but the plan failed since the royal couple never arrived.

By March 1903, there was rioting around royal residences, and a growing anti-monarchist movement throughout Serbia. Prince Peter Karageorgevich, almost sixty and the grandson of Black George, had spent much of his life in exile serving in the French army, but with Draga childless and discontent mounting, saw himself as a candidate for the Serbian throne.

Then a rumour started that Draga tried to have her brother, Nikola Lunjevica, named heir to the throne. Nikola was a junior military officer who threw frequent temper tantrums and once killed a policeman whilst drunk. As the king's brother-in-law, he had also demanded senior officers report to and salute him.

Colonel Dragutin Dimitriević, [Apis]

Alarmed by this, Colonel Dragutin Dimitriević, (Apis) the head of Royal Serbian Military Intelligence, stepped up plans for their assassination. On June 10th 1903, while Draga and Alexander dined with courtiers and members of Draga’s family at the Old Palace in Belgrade, conspirators surrounded the houses of the Prime Minister and senior officers loyal to king, including several officers of the Royal Guard. The palace guard unlocked the gates at 2.00 am, and a small band of army officers led by Apis entered the palace, killing two of Draga’s sisters and most of the court.

Draga and Alexander heard the crowd approaching and hid in a cupboard in Draga’s bedroom where they held each other and tried to keep quiet.

King Alexander and Queen Draga

Apis thought he had seen the king running away, at which a chase and gunfight erupted in the garden where a palace guard shot Apis three times in the chest, though he survived.

While Apis lay wounded in the basement of the palace, the conspirators ordered the King's first aide-de-camp, General Lazar Petrović to tell them if a secret room or passage existed in the palace. Petrović peacefully waited for the deadline of ten minutes to expire, then what happened next is not recorded in detail, but when finally the doors were shattered with dynamite, the conspirators found the bed empty.

The couple were found in a secret room behind a mirror or in an alcove - the accounts vary. When the partially dressed Alexander and Draga emerged, three officers emptied their revolvers into them, killing Draga and wounding Alexander, who frantically clung to the balcony until an officer drew his sword and cut off his fingers.

Contemporary artist's impression of the killings

Their bodies were then tossed from a second floor window onto piles of manure, though why there would be piles of dung right below the king's bedroom is not explained. The soldiers then mutilated the corpses, some accounts say they were disembowelled, then their remains were taken to St. Mark's Church, Belgrade and buried in secret.

The Prime Minister Dimitrije Cincar-Marković and the Minister of the Army Milovan Pavlović also died that night. The Queen’s brothers Nikodije and Nikola Ljunjevice were shot by a firing squad.

The National Assembly voted Peter Karađorđević as King Peter I, but international outrage came swiftly, with both Russia and Austria-Hungary condemning the assassinations. When no attempt was made to bring the assassins to justice, The United Kingdom and the Netherlands withdrew their ambassadors from Serbia, froze diplomatic relations, and imposed sanctions. British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour condemned the assassinations saying that Ambassador Sir George Bonham was only accredited in front of King Alexander, thus with his death, relations between United Kingdom and Serbia were terminated and Bonham left Serbia.

The open window from where Alexander and Draga were thrown

Russia returned its ambassador after a short, placatory negotiation, followed by other states, leaving only the United Kingdom and the Netherlands alone in boycotting the new Serbian government. British-Serbian diplomatic relations were renewed by decree signed by King Edward VII three years later in 1906.

After the coup, the Black Hand became increasingly powerful, thus King Peter exerted minimal interference in politics so as not to oppose them. In 1914, the Black Hand ordered the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo that launched WWI.

In May 1902, Natalie converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and eventually became a lay sister in the Order of Notre Dame de Sion. As Alexander's sole heir, she donated everything he bequeathed to her to the University of Belgrade and to Serbian churches.

In December 1904 the London Chronicle announced Christie's sale of Queen Draga’s jewels and costumes, including her wedding dress, ‘made of white pleated satin, elaborately trimmed with fine old Brussels lace. A cabochon emerald and brilliant bracelet presented to Queen Draga on the occasion of her marriage by Tsar Nicholas. A brilliant tiara, worn at Her Majesty’s wedding, formed as a crest of ribbon and spray foliage, with two fine large brilliants in the centre, a Persian and Turkish order, and a gold pendant and a pair of earrings of Serbian design, set with pearls and diamonds which the Queen wore with the state costume.' The sale raised £2,335.00.

In the 1920’s, a New York Times reporter found Natalie at her home and asked the former queen as to why she had not written her memoirs. She replied: 'Memoirs require memories. I have forgotten everything in order to forgive everything.'

Milan died in Vienna in February 1901, aged 46, just six months before his son, while Nathalie lived until she was 81 and died in France in 1941.

More at the Esoteric Curiosa here




Anita Davison also writes as Anita Seymour, her 17^th Century novel ‘Royalist Rebel’ was released by Pen and Sword Books, and she has two novels in The Woulfes of Loxsbeare series due for release in late 2014 from Books We Love. Her latest venture is an Edwardian cozy mystery being released next year by Robert Hale.

 

Medmenham Abbey: A Determined Heiress, Medieval monks and Georgian libertines

By Nancy Bilyeau

In my blog series on England's monastic ruins, I've written about abbeys both beautiful and sacred, with ivy-covered crumbling walls and skeletal spires. "In lone magnificence a ruin stands" is a line contained in The Ruins of Netley Abbey, by 18th century poet George Keate. The monasteries have been places of sacrifice and study, of drama and struggle, of sad abandonment.

But the story of Medmenham Abbey is nothing like that. In fact, it's safe to say, this abbey is in a category all its own.



Painting of Medmenham Abbey, as seen from the Thames

History does not record a single event of interest that took place within the abbey walls while Cistercian monks actually inhabited Medmenham between 1207 and 1536. It's what happened to a woman around the time of its founding and to a man two hundred years afters its dissolution that spark interest--and, in the case of what happened in the 18th century, an infamy that reverberates today.

THE FOUNDING: The person responsible for the abbey's existence was Isabel de Bolebec, a woman of strength who was determined to have a say in her own life. This was no small feat in the early 13th century, especially for an heiress.

The de Bolebecs were a family that possessed extensive land at the time of the Domesday Book in 1086, mostly in Buckinghamshire. Isabel was the daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Bolebec--builder of a stone castle with a moat--and is believed to have been born shortly before his death in 1165. Her first husband was Henry de Nonant, Lord of Totnes; they had no children together.

The mound is all that remains of
Bolebec Castle, destroyed by Oliver Cromwell

At some point Isabel granted lands to the abbey of Woburn, an existing house of Cistercian monks, and they decided to expand, using those lands. Medmenham Manor had belonged to her father, and she decided to bestow the land between the manor and the Thames to the Cistericians. She was clearly a pious woman who believed in religious patronage--she is best known for being a major benefactress of the Dominican order in England. In 1204 a colony of Cistercians began to live in the newly constructed abbey on the Thames.

King John, who controlled
heiresses and widows' lives

In 1206, Isabel's husband died, and she took the not-unusal step of petitioning King John for the right to not be married again or, if she did, to choose the man herself. She was about 40 years of age. Nearly all marriages of heiresses were arranged, with their fortunes as rich prizes for the king to bestow on men who he wished to favor. Some of these marriages were unhappy, even traumatic. Henry I is known to have charged rich widows for the privilege of remaining single. Sometimes the women had to pay the king in order for him to release back to them their own inheritances!

Isabel paid King John three hundred marks and three palfreys (horses) for the right to marry the man of her choice. He was Robert de Vere, a man her own age from a family as old and prestigious as the de Bolebec's. They had a son right away, naming him Hugh, and in 1214 her husband inherited from his brother the earldom of Oxford. The de Vere's managed to hold onto the the title of Earl of Oxford until 1703, all of them  descended from Isabel. Many of her descendants also carried her family's title--either Baron, Viscount or Lord Bolebec.

Isabel's descendant: The controversial Elizabethan nobleman
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of  Oxford and Viscount Bolebec

On June 15, 1215, when King John signed the Magna Carta, Isobel's husband, the Earl of Oxford, was one of 25 barons elected to guarantee its observance. Clauses seven and eight protected widows, by forbidding forced marriages at the command of the king and exempting them from having to pay for their own inheritances and dower. Those reforms must have had special meaning for the Earl of Oxford.  He died six years later; Isabel purchased the wardship of their son and the two of them went on a pilgrimage "beyond the seas."

Isabel died in 1245, around 80 years of age. When the Dominican friars of Oxford needed a larger priory in the 1230's, she and the bishop of Carlisle bought land south of Oxford and contributed most of the funds. She is buried in that church.


THE DISSOLUTION: When Henry VIII broke with Rome and began to dissolve the monasteries, the smaller ones were broken up first. Medmenham Abbey definitely fell under that category. In July 1536, the abbot and only one monk lived there--when they were evicted and pensioned off, the abbot received a pension of 10 marks. The Valor Ecclesiasticus put the abbey, the small village lying a quarter-mile away and the parish church at an estimated combined value of 20 pounds, 6 shillings.

An even graver tragedy struck at nearby Medmenham Manor. It had come into the possession of the Pole family, cousins to Henry VIII due to the bloodline of its matriarch, Margaret Plantagenet, daughter of the Duke of Clarence. In a fit of paranoia that those who possessed royal blood could try to overthrow him, the king lashed out at the Poles in the late 1530s. Margaret's son Henry Pole, Lord Montagu, who owned the manor, was beheaded for treason on Tower Hill, and his manor was claimed by the crown.

As for the abbey itself, Henry VIII granted the stone buildings and land to Thomas and Robert More; it passed to the Duffield family  in the late 16th century. Two centuries later, Francis Duffield leased the abbey to one Sir Francis Dashwood. It was then that everything changed.

THE INFAMY: Sir Francis Dashwood was born in London in 1708, the only child of a baronet who made a fortune in trade with Turkey. Sir Francis inherited his estates, title and money at the age of 15. He went on the Grand Tour of Europe in high style. Gossip circulated that along with a passion for art and literature, the young baronet formed a fondness for brothels.

By the age of 18, Dashwood was a prominent member of the Dilletanti Society, devoted to celebrating the values of ancient Rome and Greece. He spent a great deal of money turning his father's country estate, West Wycombe Park, into an Italianate villa that eventually became known as one of the most beautiful houses in England.

West Wycombe Park today

 He was obsessed with private societies, and in 1752 he formed what he dubbed the Brotherhood of St. Francis of Wycombe with likeminded friends such as the Earl of Sandwich. He soon decided a discreet location was needed, and Dashwood poured money into Medmenham Abbey, which was near West Wycombe Park. The abbey was easy to reach by boat from London.

The 13th century ruin was renovated to resemble a Gothic structure with this theme written in stained glass at the entrance: Do What Thou Will. Dashwood and his friends came up with a new name for themselves: the Monks of Medmenham. It was later that their most famous name sprang up: the Hellfire Club. Among its rumored members: the Earl of Bute, Frederick Prince of Wales, the Duke of Queensbury and even, as a visitor, Benjamin Frankin.

Sir Francis Dashwood, painted by Hogarth

What transpired inside the onetime abbey of Cistercians? Did the "monks" merely read poems and get drunk? Or were these gatherings blasphemous and pornographic, with Georgian aristocrats performing anti-Christian rituals and entertaining prostitutes dressed as nuns? Another theory was that the debauchery was a guise for political discussions, since many were members of the government opposition. Although a well-known hater of the Catholic Church, Sir Francis was dogged by suspicion of being a secret Jacobite.

London gossiped about little else but the secret society until the scandal overwhelmed the Medmenham community. Although Dashwood employed many people in the area, he must not have been popular after he and the Earl of Sandwich released a monkey into the parish church during services, and watched the worshippers flee, screaming. Dashwood took the Hellfire Club underground--literally. He moved the gatherings out of the abbey and into a series of tunnels he'd had carved out of the chalk and flint of West Wycombe Hill. The reports of the members' misdeeds grew even more shocking there. Amazingly, Dashwood, who inherited the title 15th Baron Le Dispenser, served in Parliament and rose to Chancellor of the Exchequer although, as was agreed upon by all: "Of financial knowledge he did not possess the rudiments."

Dashwood's "Hellfire Club" caves are today a tourist attraction

The Duffield family took back the abbey and sold it to the Chief Justice of Chester. It is unknown what the new owner did to Dashwood's Gothic creation. In 1898 the abbey was "restored" by a Mr. Hudson, and in the early part of the 20th century was owned by an army colonel. It is now the site of a prosperous waterfront property in private hands. Nothing of the abbey remains.

The Hellfire Club permeated the culture, popping up in new forms all over England and Ireland, and references can be found in novels, films, and songs. Often there is a whiff of blasphemy, of dark doings taking place in an abbey ruin. It didn't help that Alistair Crowley, the notorious occultist, adapted the Hellfire Club's "Do What Thou Wilt" to be a personal motto.

Diana Rigg in an Avengers episode
revolving around a 1960s Hellfire Club

But it is Sir Francis Dashwood's undeniable taste that brings the story from hell back to a bit of heaven. West Wycombe Park, his estate, is owned by the National Trust, although the present head of the Dashwood family lives in part of it with his family. The interiors are used by many film and TV companies today, including Downton Abbey's. When fans look upon the aristocratic rooms inhabited by the show's characters, they are catching a glimpse of the man who shocked Georgian society to the core.



Aunt Rosamund's London drawing room is actually the interior of West Wycombe Park

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy Bilyeau is the author of an award-winning trilogy of historical novels set in Tudor England. The Crown, the first novel, was an Oprah pick for January 2012 and reached No. 1 on amazon. The Chalice won the Best Historical Mystery Award of 2013 from the RT Reviews. The Tapestry will be published in March 2015. For more information, go to www.nancybilyeau.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my series, I've written about other monastic ruins with fascinating histories.

Such as....

Rufford Abbey: Errant monks and the life of Arbella Stuart. Read here.

The Haunting Power of Whitby Abbey. Read here.

Tintern Abbey, a Treasure of Wales. Read here.

Searching for London's Blackfriars. Read here: 

My Kingdom for a Horse: The Cost of the Equestrian Lifestyle in the Middle Ages

By Rosanne E. Lortz

It is the prince of palfreys. His neigh is like the bidding of a monarch, and his countenance enforces homage…. I once writ a sonnet in his praise and began thus: “Wonder of nature—”

--Shakespeare's Henry V  

A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!

--Shakespeare's Richard III

Very few people (unless they happen to find themselves in the same sticky situation as Richard III did) would consider trading the kingdom of England for something as inconsequential as a horse. And yet, when the medieval horse is compared to something other than the inestimable value of a kingdom, it was in fact quite a costly item, and an item that added a great deal of consequence to its owner.

A thirteenth century treatise on horses states:

No animal is more noble than the horse, since it is by horses that princes, magnates and knights are separated from lesser people, and because a lord cannot fittingly be seen among private citizens except through the mediation of a horse. 

The owning of horses, and especially warhorses, was an essential part of being a medieval nobleman precisely because it was something far out of the reach of a simple peasant.

Steven Muhlberger, in his book Jousts and Tournaments, helps us understand the value of warhorses during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by looking at the records of the king’s compensation to men-at-arms for horses lost during a campaign. He says that, “the lowest value assigned to a warhorse was £5 and the highest £100.”

To put this in perspective, “a well-off English peasant family at the beginning of the century might earn just a little over £3 annually.” In order to qualify to become a knight, Muhlberger says that a landowner would need to make £40 a year. They were “an elite class that included at the very most 1500 men.”

With warhorses being valued all the way up to £100, some of the noblest of the beasts would be worth more than a lower-level knight’s yearly income. The loss of a horse, therefore, would be a devastating blow to all but the wealthiest of men (meaning that a man would think twice about taking his horse into battle…unless the king was willing to compensate him if his horse was lost).

Detail of a horse from a medieval bestiary

Besides war, tournaments were another place where horses might be lost…or won. In many cases, the loser of the joust had to forfeit his horse to the winner.

Geffroi de Charny, one of the premier French knights of the fourteenth century, wrote a series of questions and answers dealing with the etiquette of the joust. Unfortunately, the answers (if they were ever written down) have been lost to posterity, but the content of the questions is still revealing.

2. If it happened that…one knight knocked another to the ground with a stroke of the lance, his saddle being between his legs and the whole thing off the horse, will he who knocked the other down win the horse? What do you say in this case, will it not be judged by the laws of arms?  

3. Knights are jousting without any formal announcement, and one knight knocks another down and out of the saddle with a stroke of the lance. Will he who knocked the other down win the horse? What do you say? 

5. In the emprise it is said that anyone who kills a horse with a stroke of a lance will pay for it. So it happens that in jousting one strikes the other’s horse with his lance well advanced; but their horses collide so hard that both of them fall to the ground. Will he who struck the horse with the lance pay for it or not? What do you say? 

8. A banneret sends out from his entourage some knights to go out with him in the fields to joust with those who have set the emprise; …If there are two or three of them whose horses are dead and injured in the joust from blows or falls, will the banneret be obliged to compensate them? What do you say?

From reading just a short sampling of these questions, a common theme emerges—the theme of who deserves to win a horse and who is required to compensate for a horse’s loss. In fact, out of the twenty questions centered around jousting, nineteen of them deal with these equestrian issues. Charny’s questions, designed to standardize judicial rulings in the “law of arms” at tournaments, reinforce the idea of just how consequential the possession—and loss—of a horse could be.

A medieval warhorse might not have been worth an entire kingdom, but he was still worth a tidy chunk of change. And since the consequence of owning a horse was not something the nobler classes would willingly do without, it was essential for kings to recompense knights when horses were lost and for tournament law to clearly explain when a horse would be forfeit.

The horse was the ultimate status symbol in the later Middle Ages. Shakespeare's scene in Henry V describing "the prince of palfreys" was clearly written to poke fun at the French prince...and yet, knowing how valuable horse of this period actually were, one can almost understand why the Dauphin once “writ a sonnet” in praise of his horse, whose “neigh is like the bidding of a monarch” and whose “countenance enforces homage.”

____________________________

Rosanne E. Lortz is the author of I Serve: A Novel of the Black Prince, a story set during the turbulent opening of the Hundred Years' War. It features the two premier knights of the fourteenth century from different sides of the Channel: Edward, the Black Prince, and Geoffroi de Charny.
____________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Muhlberger, Steven. Jousts and Tournaments: Charny and the Rules for Chivalric Sport in Fourteenth Century France. Union City, CA: Chivalry Bookshelf, 2002.

Saint Christopher: A Tough Guy Protecting Medieval Travelers

By Kim Rendfeld

Travel in medieval times was slow, unpleasant, and dangerous. At any time, someone could break a wheel, a person or animal could get sick, a storm could arrive suddenly, or brigands or demons could attack. You needed all the protection you could get and who better than Saint Christopher, a giant of a man so tough that only God was a worthy master?

Belief in Christopher was so strong that just seeing his image assured the viewers that they would not die that day (or at least not faint or fall). He was popular everywhere, but churches in medieval England had the most murals with his image.

St. Christopher,
from the Westminster Psalter, circa 1250
(public domain image
via Wikimedia Commons)

Yet the one certainty about Christopher is that he was a martyr in Asia Minor, probably in the third century. The image in my mind is of a huge man who goes by a name that means Christ-bearer in Greek and decides that he will not stop preaching. He would rather die and go to heaven than renounce his faith and condemn his soul to hell. (Reports that the Church ruled in 1969 that he didn’t exist are wrong. Christopher is still a saint, but his feast was reduced to local cult rather than universal.)

Like many early saints, most of what we know about Christopher comes from legend. Originally named Offerus, he was a big guy and vowed to serve only a master who feared nothing. First, he served a king, but the king was afraid the devil. Then Offerus served the devil until the devil admitted he frightened by the cross.

Offerus decided Christ was the master for him and met a hermit who instructed and baptized him. Renamed Christopher, he decided to serve God by carrying people to safety across a raging stream.

One day, a child asked to be carried. No big deal, right? Well, the kid got heavy, so heavy Christopher feared he would drown. On the other side, Christopher asked the child why it felt like the world was on his shoulders, and the child revealed he was Christ and yes, he was carrying the whole world. To prove it, he told Christopher to plant his staff in the ground, and the next morning, it was a tree bearing flowers and dates.

Christopher then decided to travel and preach and perform miracles, winning a lot of converts. But that’s when he got into trouble. The authorities were unhappy and had him tortured and executed.

Over the centuries, the story has variations. As early as the fifth century, a church was dedicated to him, and in the eighth century, his legend was written in Greek and Latin. Its final form appears in the 13th-century Golden Legend.

You could argue that Christopher’s story is an allegory of what it means to bear Christ in your heart and endure the trials of following the faith. But I suspect Christopher’s legend was true in the minds of medieval folk. Although Christopher wasn’t a knight and dragon-slayer like Saint George, he was a brave and strong man, one who helped ordinary people in the travails of travel. Perhaps that is why he captured the medieval imagination and is so beloved.

Sources

"St. Christopher" by Francis Mershman, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 1908.

The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, Fifth Edition Revised, by David Farmer

“The Life of Christopher,” The Golden Legend, from the Medieval Sourcebook

Butler's Lives of the Saints, by Alban Butler

“St. Christopher was demoted but remains a saint,” by Ellen Creager of Knight Ridder Newspapers, Abilene Reporter-News, June 6, 1998

EWTN, Fr. John Echert answering a question about St. Christopher

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

Saint Christopher is important to the early medieval characters in Kim Rendfeld’s forthcoming novel, The Ashes of Heaven’s Pillar (August 28, 2014, Fireship Press). In fact, they pray to him, and one of them sometimes assumes the saint’s name. The Ashes of Heaven’s Pillar, a story of the lengths a mother will go to protect her children, is a companion to Kim’s debut, The Cross and the Dragon (2012, Fireship Press), a tale of love amid the wars and blood feuds of Charlemagne’s reign. To read the first chapters of either novel or learn more about Kim, visit kimrendfeld.com. You’re also welcome to visit her blog Outtakes of a Historical Novelist at kimrendfeld.wordpress.com, like her on Facebook at facebook.com/authorkimrendfeld, or follow her on Twitter at @kimrendfeld, or contact her at kim [at] kimrendfeld [dot] com.

Harald Hardrada of Norway

by Peter Whitaker

King Harald Hardrada of Norway was perhaps the most famous Viking of his time when he fought the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Northumbria, England, in 1066. He was a man of large size, his saga writer Snorri Sturluson describing him as being physically larger and stronger than other men, with big hands and feet. Hardrada created a reputation for himself as a successful war-chief of similar proportions. His name was feared from Norway to the Byzantine and with very good reason; he fought countless battles across the early medieval world and it is claimed that he only ever lost two of them; his first and his last.

Harald was born in Ringerike, Norway in 1015 or 1016; records were not exactly precise in those times. His step-father was Sigurd Syr, a minor king who enjoyed wealth and the support of a strong war-band. Harald’s mother, Asta Gudbrandsdatter, made Sigurd her second husband and the union gave Harald three half-brothers, the eldest of whom, Olaf, seems to have had a great influence over him.

In 1030 Olaf returned to Norway from an exile imposed two years earlier and young Harald, at the age of 15, gathered a force of 600 men to support his brother’s return. Later that year the two of them fought at the Battle of Stiklestad, a conflict arising from the seizing of the Norwegian throne by the Danish King Cnut. The battle did not go well, Olaf was killed and Harald was wounded. He escaped but was hunted by Norwegians loyal to the Danish king.

After this disastrous start to his military career Harald headed to Kievan Rus by way of Sweden. During some 3 or 4 years he acquired considerable experience as a commander in the army of Grand Prince Yaroslav. He had brought with him some 500 loyal Norwegian warriors who were to become the backbone of his companions and the cornerstone of his later success.

Harald eventually moved south to Constantinople and with his men joined the Varangian Guard, supposedly the Byzantine Emperor’s bodyguard, but this did not stop Harald from finding himself fighting against Arab pirates in the Mediterranean, sacking towns in Asia Minor, and pushing as far east as the Euphrates in the name of Emperor Michael IV.

His success in various campaigns over such diverse theatres led to Harald becoming the captain of the Varangians. On the orders of the Byzantine Emperor the Varangians and their Norse leader were sent to Sicily to fight against the Saracens who had established an emirate there. They fought alongside Norman mercenaries who were judged to be very effective soldiers. A revolt in Italy saw the Varangians fighting against the same Normans. Michael Doukeianos, the Byzantine Catepan of Italy, commanded the army and was defeated in the Battle of Olivento, and again at the Battle of Montemaggiore in 1041. As Michael was the supreme commander this allowed Harald to continue his claim that he had only known defeat once as a commander, although in truth he was the leader of the Varangian Guard and they fought in both battles.

After the military failure in Italy Harald found himself fighting in Bulgaria, a place where he earned the chilling moniker of ‘Bulgar-burner’ for his actions. During his time with the Varangians Harald enjoyed a series of promotions and honours bestowed upon him for his many successes. However, Emperor Michael IV died in 1401 and Harald quickly fell out of favour with the newly crowned Emperor Michael V. He was imprisoned but escaped and became the leader of the Varangain faction that supported a popular revolt against the new emperor. Harald was both active and prominent in the revolt and even claimed to have dragged Michael out of his hiding place and blinded him.

After the fall of the new emperor Harald Hardrada decided to leave Constantinople but was forbidden to do so by the new Empress Zoe. Despite this restriction he attempted to escape with two ships and a handful of loyal followers. Even though one ship was lost on the infamous chains that stretched across the Bosphorus to protect Constantinople Harald was successful and reached the Black Sea. From here he was able to return to Kievan Rus. During his time in the pay of the Byzantine Army Harald had sent money and valuables to Grand Prince Yaroslav who kept his treasure safe. Upon meeting his friend again Harald discovered that he had amassed a considerable wealth, enough to allow him to marry Yaroslav’s daughter Elisiv. This was a notable achievement considering that the prince’s other daughters were married to Henry I of France and Andrew I of Hungary.

In 1045 Harald Hardrada set off for Norway with the intention of staking his claim to the throne. He arrived in Sweden first and discovered that Norway was now ruled by an illegitimate son of his half-brother Olaf, a man by the name of Magnus. This meant that he was effectively uncle to the King of Norway. Harald joined forces with Sweyn Estridsson, another Norwegian exile who had tried unsuccessfully to usurp King Magnus, and together they raided the Danish coast to demonstrate Magnus’ inability to defend his people.

King Magnus returned to Norway from a foreign expedition with his army but instead of going to war he reached a remarkable compromise in 1046 with his uncle. The terms agreed by Harald Hardrada effectively meant that he ruled Norway alongside Magnus but that he acknowledged his nephew as his senior and handed over half of his treasure.

This agreement lapsed in 1047 when Magnus died without an heir but with a command that Harald inherit Norway and Sweyn take Denmark. The new King of Norway immediately announced his intention of turning upon his former ally and invading Denmark but the army and the nobility frustrated his ambition by refusing to follow his commands. They went further in opposing Hardrada by bringing the body of Magnus back to Norway even though Harald objected. They buried Magnus at Nidros, now known as Trondheim, with one opponent to the new king openly stating that “to follow Magnus dead was better than to follow any other king alive”.

By 1048 Harald had a more consolidated position within Norway and he was able to begin the war that he intended to return Magnus’ rule over Denmark. He probably expected the war to run quickly to a conclusion but King Sweyn proved far more resilient. From 1048 to 1064 the Norwegians met the Danes in a series of inconclusive battles that effectively bankrupted both countries. The great cost of this war drove both King Harald and King Sweyn to swear to a pact in which they would maintain the peace for the rest of their lives and retain their respective kingdoms without change but there would be no form or reparations sought. For Harald this was an ignominious result that damaged his reputation somewhat.

The peace with Denmark led to active opposition to Harald’s rule in Norway and he responded with brutality, earning his name of Hardrada, which means ‘hard ruler’. As he had spent the largest part of is life as the commander of fighting men he displayed a habit of settling disputes with violence. His time in Byzantium did have some uses, however, it is generally accepted that he was responsible for the introduction of a reliable coin based economy and foreign trade with the countries with which he had strong personal links, such as Kievan Rus and the Byzantine Empire. He is also acknowledged as being an advocate for Christianity and expanded it throughout Norway.

When King Edward of England died in January 1066 King Harald of Norway claimed a right to the now vacant crown. His argument depended upon a supposed agreement between King Magnus and King Harthacnut, made in 1038, that whoever died first then the survivor would inherit their lands. When King Harthacnut died without an heir in 1042 Magnus assumed the crown of Denmark and left the English throne vacant for Edward the Confessor to assume. Hardrada’s claim was weak and the Saxon Wittan was not likely to recognise but England was, at this time, a very rich country, and Harald needed to restore both his treasury and his reputation. He joined forces with Tostig Godwinson, the embittered younger brother of Harold Godwinson, Eorl of Wessex, and now King of England. Tostig had been Eorl of Northumbria in 1065 but a popular revolt had seen him deposed. Tostig believed that his borther Harold had sided with the rebels and advised King Edward to exile him. This belief led Tostig to ally himself with the Saxons’ ancient enemy to achieve his revenge.

Together Harald and Tostig invaded Northumbria and sailed to Riccall to attack the city of York. Coincidently the brothers Edwin, Eorl of Mercia, and Morcar, the newly appointed Eorl of Northumbria, were present and on the 20 September 1066 they chose to fight a pitched battle at Fulford Gate. Hardrada defeated the young noblemen, destroyed their army, and captured York. He did, however, fail to capture the brothers.

The campaign had achieved a significant objective with surprising speed and this success seems to have lulled Harald into a false sense of security. On September 25th he rode to Stamford Bridge to accept provisions and hostages from the men of York only to find a huge Saxon army led by King Harold of England bearing down on their position. The Vikings had chosen not to wear their heavy armour, believing that they were only going to accept the homage of beaten men, and they had not expected the Saxons to be able to field another powerful host in such a short time.

The battle that followed was brutal but the odds were stacked against the Norwegians and their allies. King Harald entered the fight but was killed early on. The Saxons eventually made their advantage count and revenged the earlier defeat at Fulford Gate by slaughtering their enemy, including Harold’s brother Tostig. It is estimated that some 300 ships had constituted the Viking fleet when it sailed down the River Humber towards York but that the Viking force that was allowed to leave by Harold Godwinson could only muster crews for 30 ships for the return journey.

The fall of Harald Hardrada saw Norwegian involvement in England wane considerably. A year after his death his body was repatriated to Norway and laid to rest in the Mary Church, Nidaros; modern day Trondheim. A hundred years later his body was moved again and interred at the Helgeseter Priory. On the 940th anniversary of Harald Hardrada’s death it was revealed that the Viking king’s grave lay under a road that was built across the site of the former priory. There were plans to reinter him once again but these were later shelved.

His memory is enshrined in Harald Hardrades plass in Oslo, including a bronze relief on granite by Lars Utne. There is a relief of him on the western façade of Oslo City Hall. Perhaps most fitting is that his name and exploits are remembered in the sagas, particularly the ‘Saga of Harald Hardrade’ by Snorri Sturluson, this being the kind of legacy that the great warrior-chieftains of the Norse always aspired to achieve.

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

Kindle UK
Kindle US
Kindle CA
Kobo

Peter C Whitaker was born in Kingston Upon Hull and grew up with two brothers. His father was an engineer and his mother worked in the printing industry. After leaving school with mundane grades he went on to study English Literature and Philosophy at the adult education institution of Coleg Harlech, North Wales, going on from there to work in the food industry and the public sector. Having a life-long love of reading a trip down the A1079 from Hull to York gave him the inspiration to begin writing a book about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, a project that turned into 'The Sorrow Song Trilogy' of which 'The War Wolf' is the first instalment. He is married with two children and three cats.

Remember the Past by Maria Grace

Maria Grace is giving away an e-book copy of Remember the Past. This giveaway ends midnight, August 11, 2014. To see more about the book click HERE. Leave a comment on this post to enter the giveaway.

Dawn of a Heroic Age- Adornment in the British Bronze Age

by J.P. Reedman

The British bronze and Neolithic ages are much neglected eras where fiction is concerned. A few novels have been written about the building of Stonehenge, with varying degrees of success, but not many in comparison to, say, the later Iron Age. I believe this may in part be due to many writers (and readers) being unable to visualise what these people were like. We are used to Victorian and B-movie depictions of ‘Celts’ wearing blue woad and little else, and druids in pilfered bed sheets, but what about the people who preceded them by a millennium or two? Many people still seem to envision ‘cavemen,’ Bronze Age Fred Flintstones dragging megaliths. Over the years I have even seen archaeology books with drawings of ancient folk clad in jaunty ‘off the shoulder’ skins or, worse, building Stonehenge in the nude! (Ooh…painful!)

It couldn’t be further from the truth. By the early Bronze Age many tribes in Britain, especially around the Wessex area, had grown rather wealthy through trade and, perhaps, through the fame of their monuments. And they liked to show their wealth off, both to each other and to outsiders…

The earliest metalwork arrived in Britain around 2400-2300 B.C., brought by the ‘Beaker folk.’ For many years these people were thought to be violent ‘invaders’ due to their martial appearance—they had copper daggers, wore stern-looking stone archer’s wrist-guards, and shot lethal barbed arrows from composite bows—then it became fashionable to see their culture as spreading via trade rather than forcible imposition. Recent strontium isotope testing on Beaker skeletons has proved, however, that there was indeed a reasonable amount of migration from the continent. How these folk related to others already living in Briton is debatable; certainly most evidence for open warfare actually comes from a much earlier period of the Neolithic.

The most famous Beaker burial is the Amesbury Archer who was discovered about 3 miles from Stonehenge. A wealthy middle-aged man who had travelled from the Alps, he was probably a metal-worker—his whetstone had flecks of gold on its surface. In his grave, as part of a huge assemblage of prestige items including unprecedented amounts of archery equipment and two wrist-guards, were a pair of fine gold objects thought to be ‘hair tresses,’ denoting a high status. Another pair was discovered with a secondary burial that might have been his son or younger brother. Years before, in 1986, an almost identical burial had been found about 15 miles away near Andover, containing two more pairs of hair tresses of roughly the same date. In total about 8 pairs have been found across Britain, along with several single tresses. These hair-ornaments presumably had some special significance beyond mere ornamentation as they are all similar in design if not in size.

Replica of the Archer's hair tresses

Weaving was known by the later Neolithic—a spindle whorl has turned up at Durrington walls—so rather than skins (which would mostly have been tanned rather than left furred, with exceptions being made for cloaks and bedding) people were beginning to wear woven clothes. Although very few textiles have survived from this era in Britain, the imprints of cloth, some patterned, has been discovered on bronze axes and other precious artifacts that had been wrapped before deposition in burial mounds. So garments doubtless had design, and probably were dyed with madder and other natural colourings.

Perhaps most extraordinary though is the jewellery and weaponry, showing long distance trade routes throughout Britain and beyond. By 1900 BC some form of ‘aristocracy’ was definitely appearing in southern England, though similar ‘Wessex style’ burials do appear in the east of England, Scotland, and Derbyshire’s Peak District (sometimes called an outpost of Wessex.) And they liked their ‘bling’!

Gold was common, imported from Wicklow, Ireland. The most famous find is the lozenge found in Bush Barrow, built within site of Stonehenge. It was found in the chest area of a 6 ft tall, strong, middle-aged man, who also had a small lozenge, a gold belt buckle, and a dagger imported from Brittany with a hilt studded with tiny gold pins, each as fine as a hair. He also had a ceremonial ‘mace’ with zigzag bone mounts and a polished head fashioned from a fossil.

Bush Barrow lozenge

He is not the only one to have such a kingly assemblage, although his hoard is the largest—Clandon barrow contained a similar lozenge only with a decagon pattern rather than a hexagon, and a mace-head made of shale fixed by large gold studs. A presumed female grave in Upton Lovell held a rectangular gold pectoral plate, gold-covered beads, conical gold buttons, and a crescent-shape necklace of hundreds of amber beads. Perhaps most stunning of all is the slightly later gold pectoral cape found in Mold, Wales; made to resemble draped cloth, it had loops at the bottom to attach a cloth gown. Other barrows had other rich goods—buttons etched with crosses and amber discs in decorated gold mounts, both probably representing the sun; other buttons were jet. There were necklaces of Dorset shale, Baltic amber, and Whitby jet. One burial had a rare, red glass bead—the only one ever found of its type. Occasionally there were copper or bronze bangles, engraved with patterns. Blue faience beads were produced, not Egyptian as once thought, but British-made…one very pretty piece was fashioned into a star. Belt rings of polished bone were worn, along with toggles for fastening clothes. Women’s pendants could resemble the ‘halberds’ or axes found in male graves, though at least one pendant is slightly macabre, perhaps an ancestral talisman…a shard of human skull covered by decorated gold.

Red glass bronze age bead

Weapons are common in male burials, as might be expected, although at least one grave opened by antiquarians was reported as being that of a ‘female hero’ (alas, we know little of the contents or what became of them) Daggers with riveted hilts of wood, horn or bone, flint knives, arrowheads and bronze axes were laid to rest with their owners; many showed signs of no use at all, so must have been prestige items for show rather than in daily use. A strange two-pronged metal implement was discovered in a mound not far from Stonehenge, perhaps some kind of ‘goad.’

Bronze age goad

A few barrows have unusual contents. One found at Upton Lovell covered the remains of a man known as ‘the shaman’. He had items in his tomb that could be termed archaic—the teeth of dogs and wolves which appear to have been sewn to his clothes, similar to items seen in the Mesolithic rather than the Bronze Age. Near him was placed a large ball of quartz which might have been a ‘seeing-stone.’ A similar designation of ‘magic man’ has been suggested for the very tall (over 6ft 3) man buried near the Torstone, Bulford. He possessed a strange quartz talisman shaped like a standing stone that may have been imported from outside Britain.

A recently discovered cist-burial of a young woman on Dartmoor is unique in that organics have in this instance survived, including parts of a possible shroud, a woven bag, a fringed nettle-fibre belt, and hand-turned wooden studs that were probably ear-plugs. Within her tomb was also a bracelet with a large tin bead and assorted studs, (the first tin ever found in British Bronze Age jewellery) and Baltic amber and shale.

So, clearly these prehistoric groups of Britain, trading within the Atlantic façade zone and elsewhere, were not backwards ‘poor cousins’ isolated at the edge of the known world by their island heritage. In the well-dressed, well-armed and well-decorated peoples of the British Bronze Age, we are seeing a heroic society forming that is the basis of the stories in the Welsh Mabinogion and the Irish Mythic Cycles.

Biobliography:

Britain Begins by Barry Cunliffe, OUP Oxford

Britain B.C. by Francis Prior, Harper Perennial

Celtic from the West, volumes 1 and 2, edited by Koch and Cunliffe, Oxbow Books

The Round Barrow in England by Paul Ashbee


*Most finds described above may be viewed at the Heritage Museum in Devizes, Wiltshire or at Salisbury Museum.

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

J.P. Reedman is the author of two novels set at the time of Stonehenge, Stone Lord and Moon Lord. In these books, the roots of the Arthurian legends are explored within a Bronze Age context. She lives in Amesbury, only a stone’s throw from the grave of the famous Amesbury Archer, and has a 30 year interest in Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures, specialising in burial and ritual.

Website
Stone Lord  Amazon UK
Moon Lord Amazon UK
Stone Lord Amazon US

Moon Lord Amazon US

Finding 'The Interview'

by Patricia O’Reilly

The Interview was born from a chance remark over a lunch about English writer, Bruce Chatwin doing an interview with Eileen Gray in 1972 while he was working for the Sunday Times magazine.

An Irish designer and architect, she was a woman ahead of her time both as a designer and a woman. She created E1027, a design gem,regarded as one of the most iconic houses of the 20th century; the Destiny Screen which first brought hr international fame in 1913 and again in 1972; as well as other lacquer pieces including The Lotus Table, Bibendum Armchair and the Transaat, forerunner to today's sun-loungers, as well as the E.1027 table, forerunner for hospital tables. In her personal life, she created her own fashion style, along the lines of Chanel and lived, circumspectly, as a bi-sexual.

Eileen Gray (1878-1976) Irish designer, architect and painter, has been part of my life since the mid-1990s when Image magazine asked me to write a piece on the Irish diaspora in Paris – focusing Eileen Gray. I confess I’d never heard of her, but of course when you freelance and are being commissioned, ignorance of proposed subject is never admitted.

From my first facts on her, I was fascinated by this talented, reclusive woman who’d destroyed personal papers, mementoes and photographs, but who left a meticulous record of all her projects. Over the years, I wrote features on various aspects of her life, a radio play, did some broadcasts and spoke about her as far afield as The Princess Grace Library Monaco. I wrote a book too Time & Destiny, published by Hodder, so I considered myself to be a bit of an expert on her, but I hadn’t come across anything that tied her name to Bruce Chatwin’s .

In the National Library I trawled through reels microfiches of the early days of the Sunday Times magazine. Nothing. In Under the Sun, the Letters of Bruce Chatwin selected by Elizabeth Chatwin & Nicholas Shakespeare, I discovered a letter, dated 21 December 1972 that Bruce had written to from Sloane Avenue, his London address, thanking her ‘for the most enjoyable Sunday afternoon I have spent in years’. So they had spent time together.

Next I telephoned Bruce’s wife, Elizabeth in Wales. Yes, Bruce had interviewed Eileen Gray and, as far as she knew, the interview had never been published. She didn’t know why, didn’t think he’d even written up his notes.

I would write a book about that interview.

And so I began the process of sorting through my research – whiteboards, yellow stickies all over the house, a tape recorder and a notebook glued to me. Slowly the information I’d accrued took on the shape of the manuscript that would become The Interview. I labelled it BIP12 (book in progress no. 12). Ten of my titles are published; one languishes in a chest of drawers in the spare bedroom. I put its lack of publication down to not following my instincts on how to handle the story of the relationship between a lecturer in media studies and one of her students.

I settled on using interview techniques as my primary strand – it helped that I’d a background in journalism. I planned to weave Eileen Gray’s and Bruce Chatwin’s life stories through the interview. But the questions as to how he gained access to her and why his interview hadn’t been published niggled. I looked into the traits of my two characters.

Both had disturbed childhoods: Eileen Gray was a lonely child, with a habit of sleeping on the floor outside her mother’s room. When she was 11, her father returned to Italy to paint. She was devastated and poured all her love into Brownswood, her home in Enniscorthy. A few years later her sister’s husband’s “renovation” resulted in the simple Georgian house ending up as an over-elaborate monstrosity. Eileen and her mother, Baroness Gray, moved to their London townhouse.

Bruce Chatwin was a War baby whose mother shuffled from relation to relation, while his father, Charles, served at Scapa Flow with the Royal Navy Reserves. When the War ended, the family moved to Birmingham where Charles set up a successful legal practice. Bruce and his brother went to Marlborough College where Bruce is best remembered for amateur dramatics and his fascination with Noel Coward.

Charming and charismatic is how Bruce Chatwin is remembered. He had the ability to inveigle his way in past Louise Dany, Eileen Gray’s maid, who was first line in the defence of protecting her privacy. Would Gray have spent time with Chatwin? Yes, she was lonely. She would have felt safe in his company and they would have social identification. With him, she could re-live the halcyon days of her successes.

Gradually I began to see how a relationship could develop between the unlikely pair and why, perhaps, that interview hadn’t been published. And so I began BIP12 which during the first draft evolved to The Interview.

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

Patricia’s latest novel is The Interview. Her other fiction: A Type of Beauty, the story of Kathleen Newton; (long-listed for Historical Novel Society 2012 Award;Time & Destiny): Felicity’s Wedding; Once upon a Summer. Non-fiction: Writing for Success; Working Mothers; Earning Your Living from Home; Writing for the Market and Dying with Love. Her short stories are published in magazines and anthologies. For the past 20 years she has lectured about writing in University College Dublin, as well as providing on-line support for writers.

Website   Writers' Blog  Twitter  Facebook LinkedIn  GoodReads

The Interview - Buy from
Amazon  UK Amazon US Irish Publishers 

©POR2014

The First Crusade - Reflections on the Motivations

by Scott Higginbotham

One can almost hear the pound of drums, the steady plod of men at arms, and the clomping of countless hooves. War is fascinating, but the reality and motivations for going into the fight are much more grim and startling. Causes that could have positive and long-lasting results are oftentimes tainted by the methods.

On November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II made the call for Crusade in Clermont, France. There had been previous pleas, but this call unified, if not electrified, those in attendance. He appealed to chivalry, patriotism, and the crowd’s obedience to the Church – for the promise of salvation. He also stressed that the land was a worthy goal and that they, the Crusaders, were God’s ambassadors on that quest. Most accounts agree that the conquest of Jerusalem was not specifically mentioned during his speech, but it was expected based on later preaching as the idea gained in popularity.

"Council of Clermont" by meh
Public domain via Wikimedia Commons*

Robert the Monk chronicled parts of Urban’s speech, and while it is not clear if he wrote a word for word report (and what medieval chronicler did?), the import, which toppled a thousand years of Church teaching, can be summarized in four points 1:

1. We must go to recapture Jerusalem from the pagan Muslims.
2. We must go to come to the aid of fellow believers who are suffering.
3. We must go for the remission of our sins.
4. We must go because we are assured the imperishable glory of heaven.

It is interesting to note that these four points were summarized by two former Muslims that had converted to Christianity.  The Caner brothers also note in their book Christian Jihad that the First Crusade could have met the requirements for Augustine’s Just War Doctrine.  However, it really didn’t turn out that way, as great numbers of innocents died as Jerusalem was "cleansed" of the infidels after the siege in 1099.

Urban’s speech captivated the crowd. His word usage in the following excerpt inspired former enemies around a common goal, a common enemy besides Christian armies. However, this Crusade caused a fundamental shift in the Church and its original mission.

This now is the time to prove that you are animated by 

true courage, the time to expiate the violence committed 

in the bosom of peace, the many victories purchased at 

the expense of justice and humanity. If you must have

blood, bathe in the blood of the infidels. I speak to you 

with harshness because my ministry obliges me to do so. 

Soldiers of Hell, become soldiers of the living God! 2

His words were meant to astonish, but also to bind up old grudges and wounds. When Urban was admonishing the masses with these words the crowd began to roar “Diex le volt!” or “God wills it!” in an excited frenzy. “It was at that very moment that the Crusade came into existence.” 3

In addition to arms and armor, the Crusaders made preparations by taking a vow to strengthen their resolve.  A cloth cross was sewn onto shirts, tunics, and surcoats to symbolize their solemn undertaking. To renege on this promise was to be branded an outlaw, and for those without the cloth cross, it was implicit that there would be no salvation. Some soldiers proclaimed their devotion by using stronger measures – burning the sign of the cross on their chests like a tattoo.

Crusaders were not homogenous; they came from all social strata. Peter the Hermit led a disastrous People's Crusade months before the trained armies led by the nobles departed. He was a charismatic preacher and his army was largely made of untrained rabble; they were massacred barely inside Asia Minor (though Peter himself was not present). Motivations varied from person to person, but in one speech, Pope Urban II unified countries that once fought amongst themselves into a cohesive force embarking on a quest unlike any other – an armed pilgrimage.  Moreover, the years preceding this were marked by famine and war across Europe; piety and the blessedness of the afterlife were beacons of hope. The Crusade was this beacon for many.

"First.Crusade.Map".
Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons**

The First Crusade began as a result of a dire plea for the rescue of the Eastern Church centered in Constantinople – they were surrounded, and time was running out.  Though politics and intrigue were rampant and could fill volumes of books, I would have to agree with the Caners that the First Crusade could have been done much better. Had they followed the precepts of the Just War Doctrine (up-to date) from the Catechism of the Catholic Church below, imagine how different this period would be viewed today.

- The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- There must be serious prospects of success;
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. 4

War is costly and can impoverish nations and even souls on both sides of the divide. The downside is that there are times when it is unavoidable, or perhaps a noble and moral decision. Worse, is when the conscience becomes so seared and unfeeling that it becomes sport.

King Solomon was a wise teacher, cherishing wisdom above all else. He knew that there was a right time for everything when he said, "A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."  Ecclesiastes 3:8

1. Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, Christian Jihad, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004) 88-89.
2. Robert Payne, The Dream and the Tomb: A History of the Crusades, (New York, NY: Stein and Day, 1984), 35.
3. Caner, Christian Jihad, 91.
4. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309

* "CouncilofClermont" by meh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CouncilofClermont.jpg. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CouncilofClermont.jpg#mediaviewer/File:CouncilofClermont.jpg

** "First.Crusade.Map". Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First.Crusade.Map.jpg#mediaviewer/File:First.Crusade.Map.jpg

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

A Soul’s Ransom

 

Scott Higginbotham writes under the name Scott Howard and is the author of A Soul’s Ransom, a novel set in the fourteenth century where William de Courtenay’s mettle is tested, weighed, and refined, and For a Thousand Generations where Edward Leaver navigates a world where his purpose is defined with an eye to the future.  His new release, A Matter of Honor, is a direct sequel to For a Thousand Generations.  It is within Edward Leaver's well-worn boots that Scott travels the muddy tracks of medieval England.