04/28/13

Wales and Scotland: War, Rebellion, and Edward I

Footsteps in TimeEdward had his eyes on Wales for thirty years, ever since Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’s forces had swept through his lands (held custodially by Edward’s parents and guardians) in 1256.   (see my post:  http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/the-rising-of-1256/)  Llywelyn’s army marched all the way to Deheubarth that summer and fall, and set the stage of Llywelyn’s twenty year supremacy in Wales.  However, it wasn’t until 1267 that Edward’s father, Henry III, acknowledged Llywelyn as the Prince of Wales, a title he inherited from his grandfather–and another ten years after that before things fell apart for the Welsh prince.  http://www.castlewales.com/llywel2.html

Edward participated in the Ninth Crusade (see my post: http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/the-ninth-crusade/) and despite the fact that his father died in 1272, he didn’t return to England until 1274, at which point he immediately turned a covetous eye on Wales.  Why Wales instead of Scotland?  It seems likely that Wales looked the easier target.  Scotland had always been a separate kingdom, whereas Wales had fallen under the jurisdiction of England as a principality since the turn of the 13th century.  Thus, invading Scotland meant attacking the rule of a reigning monarch; attacking Wales meant reining in a rebellious prince–a different matter entirely.  In addition, in the winter of 1274, Dafydd ap Gruffydd, Llywelyn’s brother, conspired to assassinate Llywelyn and only a sudden snowstorm averted the attack.  Dafydd, a long time friend of Edward from childhood, fled to England, and to Edward.  Perhaps Edward believed if he unseated Llywelyn, he’d have a malleable prince in Dafydd.

For Scotland’s part, when King Alexander III of Scotland married Margaret of England in 1251 (Henry III’s daughter), Henry had tried to insist that Alexander give homage to him.  Alexander refused.  By 1261, at the age of 21, Alexander was well on his way to having as grand a plans for Scotland as Llywelyn had for Wales. He maintained a firm grip on power until his death in 1286.  http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamalexander3.htm

By then, Llywelyn had been murdered (in 1282) and Wales had fallen finally, and permanently, to Edward.   Subsequently, in 1283, Edward hanged, drew, and quartered Dafydd, the first man of standing to die such a heinous death.  Edward inflicted the same death on William Wallace in 1305.

Exiles in TimeWith King Alexander’s death, Edward saw Scotland as ripe for picking.  With no obvious heir (all of Alexander’s children had died by 1284), only a granddaughter, Margaret, remained.   When she died in 1290, upwards of fourteen different magnates claimed the throne, and they turned to Edward to arbitrate the dispute.  He, of course, wanted whoever was crowned to swear allegiance to him.  They all refused and eventually John Balloil was appointed king.  Still, Edward maintained that he was the rightful overlord–and when he demanded the Scots join him in a war against France, the Scots instead allied with France.  Unfortunately, this gave Edward the excuse he needed to invade Scotland, which he did in 1296.    (see my post: http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/the-succession-of-1290-scotland/)

http://www.castlewales.com/edward.html  This led to William Wallace’s rebellion in 1297.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace

04/16/13

Witchcraft and Witch Trials in Wales

Exiles in TimeA discovery in Tuscany might indicate an incident where a witch was killed in Tuscany:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041671/800-year-old-remains-witch-discovered-graveyard-Tuscany-Italy.html#ixzz1Z6Q83H34

They found “the 800 year old remains of what archaeologists believe was a witch from the Middle Ages after seven nails were found driven through her jaw bone . . . “  The evidence isn’t conclusive, but it is surely suggestive.

I have ancestors who were both accused witches, and the accuser of witches in the Salem trials 350 years ago in the late 1600s.  That fear of witchcraft seems to have been widespread during that era. What’s interesting is that it was far more widespread then than in the Middle Ages. In fact, nobody was accused of witchcraft in Wales in the 13th century, and there is essentially no mention of it in the historical record. 

“The development of witch trials and the witch craze is seen has developed slowly  throughout Christianity’s domination of Europe. These range from Augustine of  Hippo’s belief that witches were impossible to Thomas Aquinas’ belief that  demons attempt to corrupt humans. Common historical theory has it that a witch  craze exploded in the 15th century and spread like wildfire across the  continent.

All witch trials and witch hunts were contained by English common law. A  witch was first defined in 1542. There were accusations prior to this date, but  such accusations were not recognised legally. This was then revoked in 1547 and  then re-instated in a new guise in 1563. The English crime of witchcraft was not  demonological (an alliance between man and the devil) but maleficious (of having  mysterious powers).

It is clear that as these trials, even those of Matthew Hopkins, were bound  by English law. This meant that torture could not be used as an interrogation  method. Furthermore, the prosecutor in the trial had to provide material  evidence to prove their case. In addition, the accused would be allowed to  provide eight “compurgators” who would testify as to the accused good  character.”
Read more at Suite101: Most English Witch Hunts Failed | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/most-english-witch-hunts-failed-a359588#ixzz1ZCOyXfXx

A new book states, however, that because of the tradition of druidry in Wales, “it was a relative haven for paranormal practices, sparing the pointy-hatted pagans from hanging, drowning and other unhappy endings. In “Pembrokeshire Witches and Wizards,” author Brian John claims the Welsh druidic tradition lent a tolerance to the cause of witchcraft which still persists.  ‘Only three witches in Wales went to trial, in 1656,’ says John. ‘And that was at an English court in Chester.’”  http://www.celticattic.com/contact_us/the_celts/celtic_nations/wales/legends_of_long_ago.htm

An article from the BBC supports this position:  “Stories about witches are found all over the world – during the 16th and 17th centuries a “witch craze” in Europe saw over 100,000 people, mainly women, accused of witchcraft and executed by secular government and the church.  Yet there were relatively few witch trials in Wales, with only five Welsh witches being executed for their supposed crimes. With great reliance placed on the power of the wise man or the wise woman, witchcraft in Wales had long been connected to healing . . .

“Witchcraft comes into the historical record in 1594,” comments historian Richard Suggett, “when Gwen ferch Ellis from Bettws is indicted and subsequently executed for witchcraft. It’s the first recorded instance of what, I suppose, you can call black witchcraft. She was a healer but for some reason she was persuaded by another woman, called Jane Conway, to leave a charm at Gloddaeth, the home of Sir Thomas Mostyn, a sworn enemy of Jane Conway.” Gwen was convicted of murder by witchcraft and duly hung. There were many other accusations of witchcraft – but proving them was another matter. Most of the women spent brief periods in prison before being released when the case against them collapsed.”  http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/waleshistory/2010/03/welsh_witches.html

“There are historical records for 228 executions for witchcraft between 1000 and 1684 in England.  This is approximately one guilty verdict every three years. Witch trials peaked  in the country between 1550 and 1650; with most occurring during the English  Civil War. This means whole decades went by without witch trials in the  Kingdom.  Marc Carlson has brought together incomplete records of trials in England.  The Home Circuit saw 456 trials, Essex saw 290, York 117, Norfolk 15 and the  Western Circuit 52. We know that only 23.9 percent of trials in the home circuit  ended in conviction. 23 out of 267 trials in Essex ended with guilty verdicts  while Norfolk saw no successful convictions. Meanwhile, in the West Country  there were 7 convictions, with one overturned on appeal. There are no statistics  for York.”  http://www.suite101.com/content/most-english-witch-hunts-failed-a359588

This site goes even further and state that “not a single witch lost their life in Wales.”

More resources:

Carlson, Marc, 2004, Witches and Witchtrials in England, the Channel  Islands, Ireland and Scotland, Tulsa University(link)

Burr, George L, ed, 1898-1912, The Witch Persecution at Wurzburg, Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania (link)

Garland, Anna, 2003, The Great Witch Hunt: The Persecution of Witches in  England, 1550-1660, Auckland University Law Review (link)

Read more at Suite101: Most English Witch Hunts Failed | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/most-english-witch-hunts-failed-a359588#ixzz1ZCPkARIf


03/12/13

Leprosy

Leprosy was one of the scourges of the Middle Ages–not so much because of scale, but because when a person caught it, their community cast them out.  The lazar house in the Brother Cadfael books, St. Giles, plays a significant role in the series.  In the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, Baldwin IV of Jerusalem is portrayed as a leper, which is historically accurate.  He ruled from 1174 to 1185.  The man who recognized he had the disease (instead of the Baron played by Liam Neeson) was William of Tyre, later Archbishop and Chancellor.  As you can see from the following article, the rest of the movie is entirely fictive as well:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_IV_of_Jerusalem

Leprosy, also known as ‘Hansen’s Disease’, is a contagious disease caused by a bacteria, Mycobacterium leprae, which is why it is curable post-antibiotics.  Left untreated, leprosy is often progressive, causing permanent damage to the skin, nerves, limbs and eyes. Body parts fall off as a result of disease symptoms, rather than the disease itself.  ”

  • M. leprae multiplies very slowly and the incubation period of the disease is about five years. Symptoms can take as long as 20 years to appear.
  • Leprosy is not highly infectious. It is transmitted via droplets, from the nose and mouth, during close and frequent contacts with untreated cases.
  • Untreated, leprosy can cause progressive and permanent damage to the skin, nerves, limbs and eyes. Early diagnosis and treatment with multidrug therapy (MDT) remain the key elements in eliminating the disease as a public health concern.   http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs101/en/

 

The issue with leprosy in the Middle Ages was partly that is was so disfiguring (although not very contagious), and partly that the Bible ascribes it as a product of divine punishment.  People thus inflicted were driven out of their communities and condemned to wander the countryside, often from one leper house to another.

In today’s world millions of people stills suffer from leprosy.   It is curable, but ignorance and poverty are pervasive and prevent its eradication.  This article:  http://www.nippon-foundation.or.jp/eng/news/20091026GlobalAppealReport.html, is well-meaning, but indicates that the prejudice against people with leprosy and their families continues all  over the world.

02/18/13

What Richard III looked like …

The bones of Richard III were dug up out of a car park and now they have reconstructed his face from the skeleton:

Richard III

 

Read more: http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16852349-king-richard-iiis-face-revealed-after-500-years?lite&lite=obnetwork

From the BBC:

“Richard was born on 2 October 1452 at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire. His father was Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York and his mother Cecily Neville. Richard had a claim to the English throne through both parents. We now know that Richard had a curvature of the spine, but the withered arm and limp of legend are almost certainly either fabrications or greatly exaggerated.

Wars of the Roses

His father’s conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the Roses, which dominated Richard’s early life. His father and older brother died at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard’s brother, Edward, became Edward IV and created him Duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were exiled when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.

The Princes in the Tower and seizure of the throne

When Edward died in April 1483, Richard was named as protector of the realm for Edward’s son and successor, the 12-year-old Edward V. As the new king travelled to London from Ludlow, Richard met him and escorted him to the capital, where he was lodged in the Tower of London. Edward V’s brother later joined him there.

A publicity campaign was mounted condemning Edward IV’s marriage to the boys’ mother, Elizabeth Woodville, as invalid and their children illegitimate. On 25 June, an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed these claims. The following day, Richard III officially began his reign. He was crowned in July. The two young princes disappeared in August and were widely rumoured to have been murdered by Richard.

The beginning of the end

A rebellion raised in October by the Duke of Buckingham, Richard’s former ally, quickly collapsed. However, Buckingham’s defection, along with his supporters, eroded Richard’s power and support among the aristocracy and gentry.

Death of a warrior king

In August 1485, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who was a Lancastrian claimant to the throne living in France, landed in South Wales. He marched east and engaged Richard in battle on Bosworth Field in Leicestershire on 22 August. Although Richard possessed superior numbers, several of his key lieutenants defected. Refusing to flee, Richard was killed in battle and Henry Tudor took the throne as Henry VII.”  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/king_richard_iii

02/4/13

Breaking news! Richard III’s Skeleton Found in Car Park

Finally … the word is in:

“A skeleton found beneath a Leicester car park has been confirmed as that of English king Richard III.

Experts from the University of Leicester said DNA from the bones matched that of descendants of the monarch’s family.

Lead archaeologist Richard Buckley, from the University of Leicester, told a press conference to applause: “Beyond reasonable doubt it’s Richard.”

Richard, killed in battle in 1485, will be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral.

Mr Buckley said the bones had been subjected to “rigorous academic study” and had been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.

Dr Jo Appleby, an osteo-archaeologist from the university’s School of Archaeology and Ancient History, revealed the bones were of a man in his late 20s or early 30s. Richard was 32 when he died.

His skeleton had suffered 10 injuries, including eight to the skull, at around the time of death. Two of the skull wounds were potentially fatal.

One was a “slice” removing a flap of bone, the other was caused by bladed weapon which went through and hit the opposite side of the skull – a depth of more than 10cm (4ins).

‘Humiliation injuries’

Dr Appleby said: “Both of these injuries would have caused an almost instant loss of consciousness and death would have followed quickly afterwards.

Who was Richard III?

The earliest surviving portrait of Richard III in Leicester Cathedral

  • Richard was born at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire, where Mary Queen of Scots was later executed
  • As Duke of Gloucester, Richard took a rampant white boar as his sign
  • His coronation took place in Westminster Abbey, in a ceremony very similar to HM the Queen’s
  • Richard had one of the shortest reigns in English history – 26 months
  • He was the last English king to die in battle, killed by the forces of the future Henry VII

Source: BBC History

“In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain, which we cannot determine from the bones, death would have been instantaneous.”

Other wounds included slashes or stabs to the face and the side of the head. There was also evidence of “humiliation” injuries, including a pelvic wound likely to have been caused by an upward thrust of a weapon, through the buttock.

Richard III was portrayed as deformed by some Tudor historians and indeed the skeleton’s spine is badly curved, a condition known as scoliosis.”

 

However, there was no trace of a withered arm or other abnormalities described in the more extreme characterisations of the king.”

For more:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

For the US version:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16832540-verdict-issued-on-skeleton-found-under-parking-lot-its-king-richard-iii?lite

 

 

12/16/12

The Coracle, Prince Madoc, and the Mandans

Mandan NDLewis and Clark trekked up the Mississippi river in 1804 and spent the winter of 1804-05 at Ft. Mandan (present day Washburn, North Dakota).  Lewis believed that the Mandan people were descended from Madoc ap Owain Gwynedd, who purportedly sailed from the new world in 1170 after the death of his father, and to escape the murder and infighting among his brothers for the throne of Wales.  Given that all but one of his brothers ended up dead within 5 years, this might have been a good plan, all around.

Now, if Madoc’s family hadn’t been associated with the Danes of Dublin, the notion of such an expedition would have been even more far-fetched.  Madoc’s great-grandmother was Ragnhild, “the daughter of Olaf of Dublin, son of King Sigtrygg Silkbeard and a member of the Hiberno-Norse Uí Ímhair dynasty. Through his mother, who appears in the list of the fair women of Ireland in the Book of Leinster.”  His grandfather, Gruffydd, “claimed relationships with many of the leading septs in Ireland. His great-great grandparents on his mother’s side include the High King of Ireland, Brian Bóruma, and the King of Dublin and King of Northumbria, Olaf Cuarán, and Gormflaith.”  (Hudson, Benjamin T.  (2005). Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in the North Atlantic (Illustrated ed.). United States: Oxford University Press).  The norsemen had landed in North America over a hundred years before, stories about which Madoc would have heard.

Welshmen were not the same kind of sailors as the Danes, but one of the pieces of evidence that Meriwether Lewis and others (George Carlin) hit upon that made him think that the Mandans were indeed descended from Welshmen (in addition to their anomalous hair and eye color), were their coracles, round boats not unique to Wales, but used in the British isles for thousands of years and not found elsewhere in North America.  See http://www.data-wales.co.uk/coracle1.htm for a description.  And here for a long discussion about this issue:  http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bowen/mandans.html

That this story is anything more than a myth remains unlikely.  The origin of the story is not known, but it rose to prominence during the Elizabethan era, when England was competing with Spain for the conquest of the New World.  That a Welsh explorer had come to America first . . . well, that would strengthen the claim.  That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but as with Arthur, propaganda is a powerful tool.  “The earliest certain reference appears in a cywydd by the Welsh poet Maredudd ap Rhys (fl. 1450-83) of Powys, which mentions a Madog who is a son or descendant of Owain Gwynedd and who voyaged to the sea. The poem is addressed to a local squire, thanking him for a fishing net on a patron’s behalf. Madog is referred to as “Splendid Madog… / Of Owain Gwynedd’s line, / He desired not land… / Or worldy wealth but the sea.”   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoc

The Mandans as a people, did not survive the 19th century and there is no other evidence that might help us.  “The great plague of smallpox struck the Three Tribes in June of 1837, and this horrible epidemic brought disaster to these Indians.  Francis A. Chardon’s journals state that on July 14, a young Mandan died of smallpox and several more had caught it.  The plague spread with terrible rapidity and raged with a violence unknown before.  Death followed in a few hours after the victim was seized with pain in the head; a very few who caught the disease survived.  The Hidatsa scattered out along the Little Missouri to escape the disease and the Arikara hovered around Fort Clark.  But the Mandan remained in their villages and were afflicted worst; they were afraid of being attacked by Sioux if they ventured out of their villages.  By September 30, Chardon estimated that seven- eighths of the Mandan and one-half of the Arikara and Hidatsa were dead.  Many committed suicide because they felt they had no chance to survive.  Nobody thought of burying the dead, death was too fast and everyone still living was in despair.  The scene of desolation was appalling beyond the conception of the imagination.  The Mandan were reduced from 1800 in June to 23 men, 40 women, and 60 to 70 young people by fall.  Their Chief Four Bears, had died. (Shane, 1959, p. 199).” http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bowen/mandans.html

12/9/12

Memo to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’s Staff

I unearthed this from my archives and thought I’d share.  Too bad this isn’t a deleted scene from Footsteps in Time :)

_____________________

Breaking News! A historic document has been found in the archives at the University of Bangor in Wales! Read on for the full text!

18 November 1282

To:  All Welsh Staff

From:  Goronwy ap Heilin, Seneschal to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd

RE:  Dafydd ap Gruffydd, traitorous weasel

Summary of Facts:

Prince Dafydd ap Gruffydd, brother of Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffydd has betrayed the Cause of Wales in the following manner:

1)  In June, 1255, Dafydd and his elder brother, Owain, leagued against Prince Llywelyn, discontented with his rule of Wales and his refusal to partitition Gwynedd.  Prince Llywelyn repulsed them at the Battle of Bryn Derwin.

2)  After Prince Llywelyn forgave this shocking betrayal and released him from prison, Dafydd defected to the English crown in the spring of 1263.  Together, he and King Henry waged war against Llywelyn.  Eventually, after several defeats, Henry sued for peace and acknowledged Llywelyn’s sovereignty as Prince of Wales in 1267.  As part of the treaty, Henry convinced Llywelyn to restore Dafydd to his favor.

3)  In the winter of 1274, Dafydd and Owain ap Gruffydd Gwenwynwyn of Powys plotted to assassinate Llywelyn.  The timely intercession of a snowstorm averted the attempt.  Dafydd fled to England and to King Edward (Henry had died in 1270).  In 1277, Edward, Dafydd at his side, put together an enormous army and attacked Llywelyn.  You all well remember the tragedy of that defeat.

4) At the humiliating Treaty of Rhuddlan which resulted from the defeat, Edward forced Prince Llywelyn to accept Dafydd’s return to Wales and the resumption of his place as one of its princes.

5) On Palm Sunday in 1282, Dafydd and some supporters, now turning traitor to King Edward, attacked several of Edward’s castles in Wales, thus violating the peace Llywelyn had arranged with Edward.  Prince Llywelyn supported his brother and began to take back the lands he’d lost in the previous war—lands that Edward had taken from him with the help of Dafydd.

—WE HAVE WORD OF POSSIBLE NEW TREACHERIES LAST NIGHT IN THE BELFRY AT BANGOR CHURCH.  DO NOT TRUST DAFYDD AP GRUFFYDD.  IF SEEN ON PREMISES, APPREHEND IMMEDIATELY AND INFORM YOUR MANAGER—

11/29/12

Would a Medieval Prince Have Had an ‘Office’?

A reader asked me this the other day, and I thought it worth a post because we think of ‘offices’ as being a modern invention, with computers and fax machines and secretaries.

And yet, a medieval prince or king–any ruler, from a sheriff to a thane for that matter–must have had a place for conducting business.  Where were papers kept? Where did he upbraid his inferiors for shoddy work? England in particular has been known for its government system of record keeping back to the Middle Ages. Where did the king keep all that? I chose to use the word ‘office’  because it does, in fact, have ancient roots in the English language and because even if a Welsh prince wouldn’t have used the word ‘office’ (which he actually might have, see below), he still would have needed its function.

The word ‘office’ is derived from the Latin word:  ’OFFICIUM’ meaning “service, duty, function, business”.  We have ‘divine office’ which was the schedule of prayer services in a monastery, ‘office’ as in a formal  (often appointed) position, and then from Etymology.com:

office (n.) Look up office at Dictionary.commid-13c., “a post, an employment to which certain duties are attached,” from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. ofice ”place or function; divine service” (12c. in Old French) or directly from L. officium ”service, kindness, favor; official duty, function, business; ceremonial observance,” (in Ecclesiastical Latin, “church service”), lit. “work-doing,” from ops (gen. opis) “power, might, abundance, means” (related to opus ”work;” see opus) + stem of facere “do, perform” (see factitious). Meaning “place for conducting business” first recorded 1560s.

  • Offices in classical antiquity were often part of a palace complex or a large temple. There was usually a room where scrolls were kept and scribes did their work. Ancient texts mentioning the work of scribes refer to the existence of such “offices”. These rooms are often called “libraries” by some archaeologists and the general press because it is associated with the scrolls literature. In fact they were true offices since the scrolls were used to record records and other management functions such as treaties and decrees, and not for writing or poetry or other work related to fiction.  http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oficina
  • The High Middle Ages (1000–1300) saw the rise of the medieval chancery, which was usually the place where most government letters were written and where laws were copied in the administration of a kingdom. The rooms of the chancery often had walls full of pigeonholes, constructed to hold rolled up pieces of parchment for safekeeping or ready reference, a precursor to the book shelf. The introduction of printing during the Renaissance did not change these early government offices much.Pre-industrial illustrations such as paintings or tapestries often show us personalities or eponyms in their private offices, handling record keeping books or writing on scrolls of parchment. All kinds of writings seemed to be mixed in these early forms of offices. Before the invention of the printing press and its distribution there was often a very thin line between a private office and a private library since books were read or written in the same space at the same desk or table, and general accounting and personal or private letters were also done there. It was during the 13th century that the English form of the word first appeared when referring to a position involving duties (ex. the office of the …). Geoffrey Chaucer appears to have first used the word in 1395 to mean a place where business is transacted in The Canterbury Tales.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office

In addition, medieval lords definitely had secretaries. Many noblemen couldn’t read or write, many could read and not write (viewed as a separate task), and regardless, again, someone had to keep track of all that paperwork!  These secretaries were more than scribes. Many of them kept the household accounts, helped the lord manage his lands, and acted as castellan when he was absent.

11/28/12

Medieval Moneylending

Edward Longshankes (Edward I) got himself in debt to various moneylenders in order to fund his wars.  During his reign, he fought with his father in the Baron’s War against Simon de Montfort, against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, the Prince of Wales, against the French, and against the Scots.  All of these wars cost money.

A king had a couple of options when on a quest for funds.  One, he can tax his people.  Edward certainly did that.  Two, he can confiscate funds from those over whom he wields power.  I blogged earlier about what he did to Jewish coinsmiths in 1278 (http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/?p=179).  Henry VIII had the great plan of starting his own religion and confiscating the wealth of the Catholic Church.  That was a little more radical than Edward, who often relied on the third method, money lending.

In the Middle Ages, a number of money lending options were open to him.  He borrowed from the Jews in England until he took all their money and expelled them from England.  Christians were forbidden to lend money, so he turned to the Italian banking families.

“In Medieval Europe, moneylenders were needed as everywhere else. However, the situation was complicated by the fact that Christian laws forbade “usury” or the practice of charging interest on loans. In consequence, the function of moneylending was assumed by members of the Jewish communities who were exempt from usury laws and who were not prohibited by their own traditions to lend money to non-Jews. Thus European Jews practically held a monopoly on moneylending.”  http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/capitalism03.htm

But then came the Italians:

“By the middle of the 12th century the Jews, who were leading money changers and moneylenders, had begun to make business loans. Because the business appeared to be lucrative, powerful rivals soon ended the Jewish hegemony. By the middle of the 13th century the Italians from Lombardy had taken over the leadership. They sometimes had the privilege of minting coins. They could solicit deposits, which the Jews were often prohibited from doing. They also managed to get around the church’s edict against interest. They did not make loans and charge interest but bought and sold bills of exchange payable in foreign currency. They were, therefore, merchants in banking who hoped by the difference in exchange to make a profit equal to the interest rate they would have charged for a loan.”  http://www.investmentsandincome.com/banks-banking/banking_origin.html

The power that these families wielded can be seen in the following explanation from Wikipedia regarding John Peckham, the Archbishhop of Canterbury during Edward’s Welsh wars:

“Peckham laid stress on discipline, which often resulted in conflict with his clergy. His first episcopal act was calling a council at Reading in July of 1279 in order to implement ecclesiastical reform, but Peckham’s specifying that a copy of Magna Carta should be hung in all cathedral and collegiate churches offended the king as an unnecessary intrusion into political affairs. Another ruling was on non-residence of clergy in their livings. The only exception Peckham was prepared to make on non-residence was if the clerk needed to go abroad to study.At the Parliament of Winchester in 1279, the archbishop compromised and Parliament invalidated any regulation of the council dealing with royal policies or power. The copies of Magna Carta were taken down.   One reason the archbishop may have backed down was that he was in debt to the Italian banking family of the Riccardi, who also were bankers to Edward and the pope, and Peckham was under threat of excommunication from the pope unless he repaid the loans.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peckham

11/25/12

Marriage in the Medieval Era

“Perfect love sometimes does not come until the first grandchild.”  –Welsh proverb

Marriage as we know it now is a new institution.  While ‘love’ (at least among the upper classes) transformed the internal workings of marriage in the modern age, in Wales prior to the Midde Ages, marriage was a contract between two families, with no relationship to the Church or State at all.  Even once the Roman Church got involved, it still had nothing to do with the State.

Probably the change had something to do with taxes.

Regardless, what we know of marriage in medieval Wales comes primarily from the Laws of Hywel Dda (see the footnotes in Wikipedia for the English sources):  “The second part of the laws begins with ‘the laws of women’, for example the rules governing marriage and the division of property if a married couple should separate. The position of women under Welsh law differed significantly to that of their Norman-English contemporaries. A marriage could be established in two basic ways. The normal way was that the woman would be given to a man by her kindred; the abnormal way was that the woman could elope with a man without the consent of her kindred. In this case her kindred could compel her to return if she was still a virgin, but if she was not she could not be compelled to return. If the relationship lasted for seven years she had the same entitlements as if she had been given by her kin.[7]

A number of payments are connected with marriage. Amobr was a fee payable to the woman’s lord on the loss of her virginity, whether on marriage or otherwise. Cowyll was a payment due to the woman from her husband on the morning after the marriage, marking her transition from virgin to married woman. Agweddi was the amount of the common pool of property owned by the couple which was due to the woman if the couple separated before the end of seven years. The total of the agweddi depended on the woman’s status by birth, regardless of the actual size of the common pool of property. If the marriage broke up after the end of seven years, the woman was entitled to half the common pool.[8]

If a woman found her husband with another woman, she was entitled to a payment of six score pence the first time and a pound the second time; on the third occasion she was entitled to divorce him. If the husband had a concubine, the wife was allowed to strike her without having to pay any compensation, even if it resulted in the concubine’s death.[9] A woman could only be beaten by her husband for three things: for giving away something which she was not entitled to give away, for being found with another man or for wishing a blemish on her husband’s beard. If he beat her for any other cause, she was entitled to the payment of sarhad. If the husband found her with another man and beat her, he was not entitled to any further compensation. According to the law, women were not allowed to inherit land. However there were exceptions, even at an early date. A poem dated to the first half of the 11th century is an elegy for Aeddon, a landowner on Anglesey. The poet says that after his death his estate was inherited by four women who had originally been brought to Aeddon’s court as captives after a raid and had found favour with him.[10] The rule for the division of moveable property when one of a married couple died was the same for both sexes. The property was divided into two equal halves, with the surviving partner keeping one half and the dying partner being free to give bequests from the other half.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_law

Furthermore, in the book, Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others (the subtitle based on the fact that the medieval concept of sex was that it was something one person did to another rather than something two people did together), passage pp. 70-71.:

Consent between the parties could create a valid marriage even in the absence of intercourse. However, consent could be given in two different ways, a distinction clarified in the later Middle Ages. Words of present consent–”I take you as my wife”–created a valid marriage immediately. Words of future or conditional consent–”I will take you as my wife,” or “I take you as my husband if my father agrees”–did not. If, however, words of future or conditional consent were followed by sexual intercourse, the marriage immediately became valid; the parties were assumed to have dropped the condition. This meant that a promise of marriage given to seduce a woman into sex–”If you get pregnant, I will marry you”–was not merely enforceable but actually self-fulfilling. (It might or might not be enforceable, depending on whether or not there were witnesses, but according to canon law even if performed without witnesses and an officiant, the marriage was valid; they were married in the eyes of God, even if there was no evidence to convince a church court.)”

Thus, as my daughter pointed out, Meg and Llywelyn in Daughter of Time, were married by medieval canon law, even if they didn’t tell anyone about it.

Stephanie Coontz, in her book “A History of Marriage” writes:  “For most of history it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love and then focus all their sexual, intimate, and altruistic desires on the resulting marriage. In fact, many historians, sociologists, and anthropologists used to think romantic love was a recent Western invention. This is not true. People have always fallen in love, and throughout the ages many couples have loved each other deeply [as evidenced by the acknowledgement of elopement in Welsh law--SW].

But only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married. When someone did advocate such a strange belief, it was no laughing matter. Instead, it was considered a serious threat to social order.”  http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/marriage/chapter1.htm

John Davies writes:  “The readiness to marry close relations reflected the central role of the bonds of kinship in early Wales.  In the age of Hywel Dda, it was a man’s standing in a network of kindred rather than his standing as the citizen of the state which determined his social status, his economic rights and his legal obligations” (History of Wales, p. 91).

As the Middle Ages progressed, gradually the Church began playing a greater role in marriage throughout Europe, whether in blessing the act or interfering with who could marry whom, although once again, it took longer to gain traction in Wales.  Llywelyn ap Gruffydd married Elinor de Montfort at Worcester Cathedral–and Edward I gave the bride away–but a church marriage was still not common in Wales in 1278.  Even in Europe, “If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married” up until the 16th century.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin