"The White Ship" by Charles Spencer

 The White Ship was a ship travelling to England that sank in 1120 on a voyage from Barfleur in Normandy France; its historical significance was that among the dead was Prince William, the only legitimate son of Henry I, King of England. William's death provoked a succession crisis on Henry's death leading to a eighteen-year-long civil war between the supporters of King Stephen and Henry's only legitimate daughter, the Empress Matilda.

Of course, mediaeval history relies on just a few chronicled sources, so there are insufficient details in the story of the White Ship itself for a whole book, especially when you write narrative history and don't spend endless pages considering your sources. So Spencer chooses instead to set the incident of the White Ship into the context of the history of Norman England from 1066 to 1154. But encapsulating 88 years into 300 pages leads to problems of brevity. This is especially true when trying to describe the dynastic battles in northern France between the mini-states of Normandy, Anjou, Maine and Flanders, among others' it is even more true when trying to follow the convoluted history of the Stephen-Matilda conflict in which many participants changed sides at least once. The result is a history which manages to be at once confusing and over-simplistic. The book was a disappointment compared to Spencer's other forays into narrative history: Blenheim and Prince Rupert.

This is a fascinating period of history, responsible for much in the making of England, and it is better served by histories that take their time, such as:

• King Rufus by Emma Mason
• Henry I by Judith Green

Nevertheless, Spencer mentions, en passant, some fascinating insights into the Middle Ages.

• As a prince, Henry I was regarded as "something of an intellectual" because he could read ... although "there is no evidence that Henry could write". (Ch 2)
• Magnus Barefoot, who became King of Norway in 1095, "took control of a strong of islands around the north and west of Scotland, moving on to the Isle of Man, before landing on the island of Anglesey." (Ch 3) He was supported by Harold Haroldson, son of the King Harold killed at the Battle of Hastings. (Ch 5)
• William II made (later Saint) Anselm of Bec , who formulated the ontological argument for the existence of God, Archbishop of Canterbury (Ch 3)
• Just before the death of William II by an arrow in a hunting accident one of the illegitimate sons of Robert Curthose, William's older brother and Duke of Normandy, was killed by an arrow in a hunting accident; the guilty knight fled to the priory of St Pancras in Lewes and became a monk to avoid punishment. (Ch 4)
• Scottish King Macbeth ruled for 17 years: he "was a devout Christian who attended a papal jubilee in Rome in 1050 ... impressing onlookers with the amount of alms he doled out to the poor. As king, Macbeth insisted on enlightened measures, such as the legal defence of widows and orphans ... His strength of purpose and his vision helped to bring prosperity to his people." (Ch 4)
• Henry I's Queen, Matilda, built a single-span bridge over the River Lea, bear a favoured bathing place, which soon became known as Stratford-le-Bow. (Ch 6)
• The infamous cruelty of Robert de Belleme, at one time master of Arundel Castle, "is believed to be the model for 'Robert the Devil', a mythical Norman lord of chilling depravity, who was supposedly the spawn of the Devil." (Ch 8)
• The loss of his wife Matilda on the White Ship led the Lord of Perche to found a chapel at Soligny-la-Trappe which later became the site of the first Trappist monastery. (Ch 12)
• The father of Geoffrey of Anjou who married the Empress Matilda, daughter of King Henry I and mother of King Henry II, was Fulk, who later became the second crusader King of Jerusalem. 
• "There were those who believed that the house of Anjou descended from a diabolical source. Supposedly an Angevin count had long before returned from a visit to a far-off land with a beautiful wife who was a suspiciously reluctant churchgoer. When she did attend, she always left before the consecration. One day her husband had four of his knights tread on the fold of her cloak so she could not slip away mid-service. Forced to witness the priest holding aloft the host she was said to have screamed, slipped her cloak and flown away with two children in her wake. This was how she was revealed to be Melusine, the Devil's daughter." (Ch 15)

June 2022; 298 pages

This review was written by the author of Motherdarling  and The Kids of God

"Saint, Bishop and Concubine" by David Reekie

This book endeavours to show that the Bayeux Tapestry, which records the defeat of King Harold II of England at the hands of the Norman Invader William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings in 1066,  was made in Canterbury, Kent. 

The evidence seems strong. As well as depicting the events on pictorial form, like a rather long strip cartoon, the Tapestry includes text which is written in Latin. However, the author points out that 

• “Some of the names are in a clearly English form ... For instance, the final letter of Harold’s brother Gyrth is the English letter 'thorne' a barred 'D' derived from the runic alphabet, instead of the latin 'D'.”
• "William is usually spelt as 'Willelm' in the English manner, rather than with the French 'G' of 'Wilgelm'.”
• “There is also the use of the English symbol for 'and' which is a reversed 'L', in place of the Latin ampersand & ('Et')”
• “The use of the English 'AT' rather than the Latin 'AD'”
• “The use of the English 'Caestra' rather than Latin 'Castra'. ('At Hastingae Caestrum')”
• “The opponents of Harold are in several places called not 'Normani' but 'Franci'. This follows English usage where Normans are often not distinguished from the French generally.”
• Although the Normans repeatedly described Harold as an Earl (because they wanted to suggest that his Kingship was illegal), the Tapestry describes him as 'Rex', Latin for King.

The text therefore suggests an English author. However, this doesn't locate the creation in Canterbury specifically. To do this, the author relies on more evidence from the Tapestry:

• It mentions two Normans called Vital and Wadard. It seems strange that two somewhat minor players should be honoured with names. Both Vital and Wadard were later involved with St Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury, the place where the authro suggests the Tapestry was embroidered.
• A prominent part in the Tapestry is played by Odo, half-brother to William and Bishop of Bayeux ... who was also Earl of Kent after the Conquest.
• One scene in the tapestry shows Odo at the centre of a feast at a curved table ... an image which seems remarkably similar to a Last Supper around a curved table in an illustrated manuscript in the possession of St Augustine's Abbey in the late 11th century.
• The Tapestry shows detailed knowledge of the area around Mont St Michel in Brittany; the treasurer of the Abbey of Mont St Michel at the time later become the Abbot of At Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury.

As well as this story of the tapestry, the author embroiders the background of many of the characters. As is often with books such as this, the extraneous details are often the most fascinating. For example:

• "The names Hengist and Horsa mean 'stallion' and 'mare'.”
• “Ethelbert was the first English monarch to reintroduce the use of coinage. This would have greatly stimulated trade and facilitated the exchange of goods. To start with only gold coins called 'tremises', or shillings, were used but later a smaller denomination called pennies, or 'sceattas', were introduced.”
• “Other peculiarities of Kent include the retention of an ancient system of inheritance called 'Gavelkind' which seems to have been unique to Kent. Under Gavelkind, unlike elsewhere in England which adopted primogeniture where the eldest son inherited land, the land was divided equally amongst the surviving sons. ... Gavelkind by contrast allowed land to be freely bought sold and exchanged so that larger landholdings could be built up by more successful farmers. ... Gavelkind survived in Kent until the 1920s.”
• “The names 'Baxter' and “'Brewster' are female forms of 'baker' and 'brewer'. 'Lady' comes from Old English 'Hlafdige' meaning 'Loaf kneader'.... The word 'wife' comes from 'weaver' and of course 'spinster' was an almost universal occupation for females whether married or not.”
• “There are only 3 women depicted in the main panels, and 370 men.”
• “Someone once counted a total of 93 penises shown in the Tapestry, most of which belonged to horses but some to men.”

A most unusual feature of this history book is that the author has provided monologues from some of the characters involved in the story. These are clearly reconstructed and fictional, but turn this book into a sort of hybrid between history and historical novel, a sort of literary version of a drama documentary.

Well written and informative. November 2020

"The Battle of Hastings 1066: the uncomfortable truth" by John Grehan and Martin Mace

Not that uncomfortable. These authors simply contend that the Battle was not fought on Battle Hill where Battle Abbey was built (allegedly with the High Altar being on the spot that King Harold died) but was instead fought on the far higher and steeper nearby Caldbec Hill. The argument convinced me in the first few chapters and I really did not need the authors to belabour it quite as much as they did.

Apart from being higher and steeper, Caldbec Hill was the meeting point of Harold's army. It was the point at which important roads intersected and where three hundreds met. The was a Hoar Apple tree to mark the spot of the assembly and one of the original sources states that this was where the battle was fought. In addition, it was near the forest and an early source tells of William seeing the Saxons coming out of the trees. It made no sense for King Harold to move from his highly defensible meeting place whilst he was still awaiting further reinforcements down hill to the much gentler Battle Hill where his men, who fought on foot, could easily have been mown down by the Norman cavalry. Furthermore many of the early sources agree that the battle, which unusually for mediaeval battles lasted all day, proved very hard for the Normans because they had to fight uphill. Finally, a significant moment in the battle came when some of the Norman cavalry rode into a ravine and were suffocated, one on top of the other. There is a likely river near Caldbec Hill where this might have happened but not near Battle Hill.

And there have been archaeologists digging on Battle Hill without turning up any significant evidence of the thousands of men who were killed in this battle. Perhaps they should be excavating on Caldbec Hill instead.

OK. I think these two historians have proved their point. Argument ( more or less) over. But this book could have been half the length and still convinced me.

February 2015; 154 pages