When and what was Lammas?

Medieval chroniclers have a tendency to mention feast days rather than actual dates because everyone would have been familiar with the festival – which was an opportunity to have a holiday (holy day). This post is part of a series of short occasional posts about such feast days. So far I have discussed Candlemas which falls on February 2nd.

Lammas, which turned up in a post about the death of William Rufus, falls on the 1st August. It’s an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “loaf mass.” It celebrated the first loaves made from the new grain of the wheat harvest – hopefully it meant the season of plenty had arrived once more. Some places, such as Exeter, still have Lammas Fairs. It was a date when rents were to be paid, debts to be settled and labourers hired.

The date also happens to be the feast day of St Peter in Chains so later medieval writers will sometimes refer to that rather than Lammas. Some medieval accounts of Lammas lost sight of the derivation of the word and thought that it was to do with lambs – which is logical given the sound of the word. There are other festivals associated with Lammas but this post is only concerned with dating in terms of chronicle accounts.

Garendon Abbey

Garendon Hall

Garendon Abbey in Leicestershire was founded in 1133 by Robert, Earl of Leicester.  It was a daughter house of Waverley, the earliest Cistercian monastery to be established in England. As well as holding land in Leicestershire it extended its grand holdings into Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire – Roystone Grange near Ashbourne was gifted to the monks by Adam de Harthill.

By 1225 the abbot had obtained permission to export wool to Flanders which is typical of the order and a reminder of the great Cistercian houses in Yorkshire. The monks weren’t always the best example of monastic chastity or sobriety – one of the abbots was married and another had a bit of a drink problem. Abbot Reginald was murdered in 1196 according to the Monastic Anlicanum. By the reign of Edward III the abbey had got itself into severe financial difficulties and seems to have been harbouring robbers.

By 1535, the year in which Cromwell sent his commissioners to the monastic houses of England and Wales, Garendon was worth less than £160 p.a. There was also the matter of three monks wishing to escape their vows and two more being deemed guilty of unnatural vices. There were only 14 monks at the time. However, they were also providing a home for old people and children. This didn’t save it from dissolution the following year.

Lady Katherine Manners after the death of her husband – the Duke of Buckingham

The estate and it’s buildings were granted by Henry VIII to Thomas Manners, the Earl of Rutland. He paid £2,356 5s 10d for his new property. Garendon remained in the hands of the Earls of Rutland until 1632 when it formed part of Lady Katherine Manners dowry. She was the sole surviving heir of the 6th Earl. She ended up married -by trickery- to the Duke of Buckingham. https://thehistoryjar.com/2018/01/20/witchcraft-scandal-and-the-duke-of-buckingham/

Katherine’s son sold Garendon in 1683 to Ambrose Phillipps, a successful London barrister.

I have posted about Garendon before: https://thehistoryjar.com/2016/11/14/garendon-abbey-granges-and-a-spot-of-drunkenness/

Roystone ended up in the hands of Roland Babington. Roland was born in Dethick along with his brother Thomas. Thomas tried to secure land from Beauchief Abbey in Sheffield upon its dissolution. Thomas’s descendent is the more famous Sir Anthony Babington.

Early sources on the death of William Rufus

William Rufus pictured in the Stowe Manuscript

I’ve stated before that we all like a good conspiracy theory – and why not- sometimes though the theory grows with the retelling.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle  which is one of the earliest accounts of William’s untimely demise is terse. “In the morning after Lammas King William when hunting was shot by an arrow by one of his own men.” Similarly Eadmer, who is St Anselm’s first biographer, states that when the news that William had been killed arrived at the monastery where Anselm was staying that Anselm sobbed for the soul of the king and wished that he had died – the inference being that Anselm had a better chance of Heaven than the “Red King” who was definitely not on the list of the Church’s ten most saintly people. There was however, no suggestion, that he had been murdered.

If anything the accounts that followed wished to create a moral story. Peter of Blois’s account saw the Devil make an appearance whilst William of Malmesbury mentions dreams amongst other portents. In both cases there is no suggestion that William’s death is anything other than a hunting accident. Orderic Vitalis discusses other royal hunting accidents.

Matthew Paris has the arrow that killed William ricocheting off a tree where as earlier accounts have Walter Tirel taking a shot at a second deer but having the sun in his eyes. A later account, 1889, includes the sound of argument and broken bow strings. The broken bow string belonged to Prince Henry and that can be found in Wace’s account of William’s death. Wace was born about 1110 and he wrote his La Roman de Rou in about 1160.

It should probably be noted that William’s likely killer, Walter Tirel, was a patron of the Benedictines. He had links with Bec and let’s face it there’s the additional problem of Henry I’s undignified rush for the treasury in Winchester and the Crown of England. It is very easy to see henry making a bid for the crown, especially as his and William’s elder brother Robert Curthose was on his way back from the First Crusade with a wealthy bride – were she to have children then Henry’s claim would dwindle. Alternatively if you were a Norman prince you probably had to cease opportunities when they came up in order to gain the power you craved.

I have posted elsewhere about the possibility of the Clare family being involved in a conspiracy to finish William and as always there’s more than one argument to be made as well as rather a lot of circumstantial evidence to unpick. It’s certainly provided rather a lot of novelists with material.

Candlemas on the borders

Edward III

Candlemas or the Feast of the Purification of Mary is February 2 and the date when the baby Jesus was supposed to be presented at the Temple. Jesus is the light of the world – there were ceremonies that involved processing with candles which were often then blessed. These candles were supposed to be helpful in time of illness – they would be decorated and kept throughout the following year. They were also supposed to protect dwellings from storms.

Candlemas is one of those feasts that turns up in a historical context to mark the time of year. It’s not a quarter day but it is an important feast. I’ve come across it most often when reading about the border between England and Scotland. George MacDonald Fraser made the feast famous with his novel The Candlemas Road a story set in the sixteenth century about Lady Margaret Dacre the heiress of Askerton Hall.

Essentially Candlemas was the feast that was half way between Christmas and the Spring Equinox. For the borderers this meant the “light at the end of the tunnel” so to speak – the reivers’ horses weren’t up to the task of raiding from that point onwards.

Portrait of Sir Robert Carey circa 1591 NT; (c) Montacute House; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Raiding and reiving seems to have gone on all year but the cycle of the seasons made the winter months particularly noticeable. “The longer the nights grow the worse they will be,” notes Sir Robert Carey in his memoirs of his time as the Deputy Warden of the English West March. George MacDonald Fraser records that from September to November the land was dry and the cattle which had been in the meadows all summer were at their best i.e. it was good riding and the cattle were at their most valuable and thus a greater temptation. As the winter progressed the cattle grew weaker and the weather was often too bad to want to steal them in any case. By February 2nd – forty days after Christmas, the cattle were in their poorest condition and feed was more expensive so it was unlikely that many people would be feeding their horses the oats they required for hard riding – so if you were a law abiding soul you would probably sleep a little easier…until the better weather at any rate.

It should be noted that there is always an exception! The Scots won the Battle of Nesbit Moor in August 1355 before attacking and sacking Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Edward III was forced to bring an army north in order to defend the castle at Berwick which was under siege. The Scots decided that discretion was a sensible option and backed off before Edward arrived at his destination. Having met with Edward Balliol at Roxburgh, Edward decided to teach the Scots a lesson and in delivered his retribution in February 1356 in the Burned Candlemas Campaign. Basically Edward III set fire to the Lothians and what the English didn’t destroy the Scots did in a bid to force the English back with a burned earth policy. In the end this turned out to be justified as Edward’s fleet was destroyed in winter gales off North Berwick.

Edward expressed his irritation by destroying Haddington Monastery but was eventually forced to turn back.

‘Whitekirk and the ‘Burnt Candlemas’, Rev. Edward B. Rankin in the Scottish Historical Review Vol. 13, No. 50 (Jan., 1916), pp. 133-137

MacDonald-Fraser, George. The Steel Bonnets

Mortimer, Ian. (2008) The Perfect King: the life of Edward III

The Prince’s Crusade

The image shows the Siege of Antioch: (Image: Jean Colombe – Adam Bishop/Public domain) from https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/modern-europe/wars-battles/crusades/first-crusade

Urban II convinced many people to take the cross because he offered a papal indulgence – essentially they would be pardoned for their sins. It was also an opportunity for impoverished knights to achieve some wealth.

The Princes’ Crusade set off between August and October 1096. In total eight “princes” were involved with the official First Crusade -not the Peasants’ Crusade. They were Count Hugh of Vermandois, Count Robert II of Flanders, Duke Godfrey of Bouillion, Prince Bohemund of Taranto, Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, Count Raymond of Toulouse, Count Stephen of Blois and Duke Robert of Normandy. Each of them gathered their nobility together and raised funds for the journey and to pay for their armies.

It is believed that there were 6000 mounted knights and 44,000 foot soldiers though only half of them were fully equipped and trained. Robert Curthose did not lead an army he joined with his nearest relations having taken a leisurely journey, overwintering in Puglia with Count Roger Borsa. On arrival in Constantinople each prince was presented with lavish gifts by Emperor Alexios and in return swore to hand over any land they acquired if it had once been part of the Byzantine Empire.

On 19th June 1097 Nicea fell to the crusaders – in part because the Seljuk Turks underestimated the new armies that had arrived on their doorstep believing them to be as badly trained and armed as the Peasants’ Crusade.

In March 1098 Baldwin of Boulogne and Godfrey of Bouillion took their men in the direction of Edessa which they seized and held.

Meanwhile Antioch was under siege. It was a protracted affair. In January 1098 Bishop Adhemar proclaimed that Antioch had not fallen to the crusaders due to their sinfulness. The army was required to pray and fast, all women had to leave the camp, and riches were donated into a central fund to help the poor.

Stephen of Blois decided to go home and told Alexios not to bother bringing an army to support the remaining crusaders. This meant that when Antioch did eventually fall that Bohemund was able to convince the remaining princes that their oath to the emperor no longer held because he had not fulfilled his side of the bargain.

By the 4th June 1098 the Crusaders, due to a bribe, had taken the city but not the fortified citadel of Antioch and now found themselves facing a relief force that had arrived from Mosul. The Crusaders now found themselves besieged in Antioch whilst the citadel worked with the Moslem general Kerbogha to attack them. Some crusaders deserted the cause, including Bohemond’s brother. The city was already in a poor state so it wasn’t long before the remaining crusaders began to face starvation and death from assorted diseases. There were rumours of cannibalism.

But on the 28th June 1098 the crusader army faced Kerbogha in open battle – some sources suggested that they were outnumbered 4 to 1. The crusaders won the battle and took full possession of both the town and the citadel. The reason behind the victory is usually given that on the 14th June the crusaders discovered the Holy Lance which had pierced Christ’s side. Their faith was reinvigorated because God had shown himself to be on the side of the crusaders- at least that’s what most of the received wisdom on the subject states because that’s what the primary sources indicate. The siege had lasted seven months.

Essentially on the 10th June Peter Bartholomew had a private meeting with Raymond of Toulouse – unusual given that Bartholomew was a peasant. He claimed that he had received a series of dreams featuring St Andrew the Apostle telling him where to find the Holy Lance in the Basilica of St Peter in Antioch. Apparently God had set the spear aside specifically for Raymond. The account of the visions and discovery was written in about 1101 by Raymond of Toulouse’s confessor. Bishop Ademar who was at the initial meeting had his doubts about the whole thing and these are also recorded in the primary source – the cleric wasn’t convinced that St Andrew would have anything to do with a peasant from Provence plus Emperor Alexios had the Holy Lance in his collection of religious artefacts because it had been discovered in the fourth century by St Helena. Either way the Crusaders had a thing about religious artefacts -for instance, Robert of Flanders stole St George’s arm from a monastery en route to the Holy Land. And it wasn’t just relics – angels had started turning up in support of the Crusaders. At the Battle of Dorylaeum Raymond of Aguiliers recorded a shining presence in the crusaders’ midst.

By June 1099 the crusaders were besieging Jerusalem. The siege lasted from the June 7th until July 15th. It began with a barefooted march around Jerusalem’s wall reminiscent of the Biblical Siege of Jericho. Fortunately for the crusaders who were hungry and thirsty supplies were delivered by the Genoese fleet which made harbour in Jaffa. When Jerusalem fell there was a terrible massacre of Moslems and Jews. Whilst post-siege atrocities were the done thing in medieval times the deaths that followed Jerusalem’s fall were seen as excessive even by the standards of the time – first hand accounts describe crusaders up to their ankles in blood.

Following the fall of Jerusalem and later of Acre many crusaders believed that their pilgrimage was over and went home. Those who remained founded the Crusader states or Outremer: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the County of Edessa. This was clearly contrary to the oath that the princes had taken to the Emperor Alexios (Though Raymond I think had promised only not to harm Alexios rather than giving any oaths pertaining to land). The new Christian kingdoms were vulnerable to attacks by Muslims who aimed to recapture the territory taken in the first crusade. Inevitably it led to more conflict.

And that’s all I plan on posting about the First Crusade for the time being – though I am beginning to think it would make a manageable topic for a day school in Halifax in 2020/21. As always apologies for any spelling mistakes – I have discovered an app that should help but cannot download it onto my computer at present (bah humbug.)

The Peasants’ Crusade

Map showing the People’s Crusade – not sure about language. The People’s Crusade went through the Rhineland, by-passed Bohemia, received permission to travel through Hungary and from there into the Byzantine Empire – (Serbia and Bulgaria – ish!)

As with the previous post this is not an exhaustive piece on the Peasant’s Crusade or the People’s Crusade as it is also known – it’s an introduction.

Pope Urban II preached crusade at the Council of Clermont in November 1095. The idea was that the crusaders would set off the following summer. However, before the various military leaders could get themselves organised an army of about 50,000 peasants marched in the direction of Constantinople.

The peasants were led by Peter the Hermit. He had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem but was prevented from entering the city by the Seljuk Turks. It is possible that he was one of the inspirations for Urban II’s sermon but more factually we know that he preached crusade in France and then began gathering his army under the authority of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. His licence to preach included England.

For the people who joined Peter the Hermit there was the religious element of the crusade to consider but also the fact that it enabled peasants to leave the land which many of them were tied to by the feudal structure. However, as the vast majority of them were not wealthy there came the problems of having to take entire families and living off the land.

By spring 1096 Peter was in the Rhineland where preaching crusade led to a massacre of Jews. This killing spread with the crusade. At Mainz the Bishop hid numbers of Jews in his palace but they were still murdered. In part it was religious intolerance – torah scrolls were destroyed. The Jewish population was targeted and murdered. Another element was the opportunity to acquire money and goods.

At Cologne, Peter had to stop to resupply but here, initially at least, the Jewish community was largely saved by their gentile neighbours who hid them in their own homes. Unfortunately the crusaders sought them out when they moved into hiding in nearby villages -and killed them anyway. None of it makes happy reading.

At this time, whilst Peter halted, a party of impatient crusaders led by Walter the Penniless contained on their journey. As this army led journeyed south stealing and living off the land there were confrontations between the crusaders and the local Christian populations.. At Semlin about 4,000 Hungarians were killed and a number of crusaders took refuge in a chapel where they were burned to death. The rest of the crusaders continued on their way setting Belgrade on fire. They were attacked on the way to Sofia resulting in the loss of many of their untrained soldiers. Peter travelling after Walter’s group came to Semlin to find the town wall hung with things taken from Walter’s crusaders.

Peter and his army eventually arrived in Constantinople in July 1096. They were not what the Emperor Alexios wanted not least because he was now expected to care for an untrained army that included impoverished men, women and children – think rabble rather than army. There are questions as to whether Alexios sent Peter and his People’s Crusade off across the Bosphorus without guides in order to get rid of them or whether they continued into Turkish territory despite having been told to wait but that is a matter for debate.

At Dracon, in Turkish held territory Peter and his army were attacked and fought the Battle of Civetot. It was a disaster for the People’s Crusade. Most of them were killed or enslaved.

Duncalf notes that the chroniclers of the period did not write much about the People’s Crusade not least because they did not assist the main or Princes’ Crusade although Peter the Hermit turns up on other occasions in the story of the First Crusade because he joined with the army of Godfrey of Bouillon. There other narrative accounts which are contemporary including that of Anna Komnina the daughter of Emperor Alexios.

I am sorry if there are any really terrible spelling mistakes – this version of WordPress changes spellings to what it thinks they should be, based on the pattern the misspelling makes and I cannot always see where changes have happened even reading the post through before hitting the publish button.

For a more extended account of the People’s Crusade follow this link: https://www.historynet.com/first-crusade-peoples-crusade.htm

Duncalf, Frederic (1921) The American Historical Review, Volume 26, Issue 3, April 1921, Pages 440–453, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/26.3.440

Kostick, Conor (2008), The Social Structure of the First Crusade. Brill

The First Crusade 1095-1099

Urban preaches

Pope Urban II preached at Clermont-Ferrand in November 1095. As a result of his words somewhere in the region of 100,000 men from all ranks of society took up his call to arms in order to recapture Jerusalem from the Saracens (Seljuk Turks) who since their capture of the city had forbidden Christians from making pilgrimages. In addition to suddenly wanting to make the Holy Land Christian there was also a wave of anti-Semitism across Western Europe.

Usually three political reasons are given for the Crusade:

  1. The Byzantine emperor, Alexios Comnenos, wanted the Franks to help get rid of the Turks who were invading from Asia Minor.
  2. Pope Urban II was not the only pope – there was an alternative in the form of Pope Clement III who was based in Rome whilst Urban held northern Italy and France. By calling for a holy war he was seeking to unite a faction ridden Christian world and take the spot as top Pope. It would become deeply un-Christian for Christian rulers to go to war against one another when they should be killing the infidel.
  3. Faith, land and religious violence go hand in hand at this time. Urban preached Crusade in Spain against the Muslims as well as preaching for the capture of Jerusalem from the Saracens.

But why did so many men take up the call to arms:

i) Urban promised that they would be forgiven their sins.

ii) There was the lure of land and loot.

iii) Adventure.

iv) Deus Vult “God Wills It” – a snappy piece of recruitment either used during the Clermont sermon by a very enthusiastic crowd or by a sharp thinking eleventh century spin doctor shortly after.

In Normandy a period of unrest came to an end – more or less as Urban must have hoped would happen across the Western Christian World. Robert Curthose took the cross having mortgaged his duchy to his brother William Rufus in order to pay for the adventure and set off in the direction of the Holy Land. William waved his brother goodbye and settled down to being regent in Normandy in his brother’s absence.

It had been pretty good timing on Robert’s part given that it would have been deeply unmannerly of William to conquer the duchy whilst Robert was on Crusade. Yet in 1094 William and set his sights on Normandy, come to terms with his brother Henry and taken castle after castle. By the time Robert decided to take the Cross, William already held 20 castle in Normandy. By going when he did Robert deferred defeat.

William Rufus – the red

King William II – a name that we don’t tend to use – it’s usually Rufus. Bynames which described a person’s appearance crop up a lot in medieval history. It was a habit that gradually disappeared from the naming of English monarchs but in continental Europe there were a whole series of Charleses who rejoiced in bynames such as “fat,” “bald,” “simple,” not to mention a number of King Louis who were pious or who stammered.

Eadmer of Canterbury never uses his byname whilst a slightly later writer, William of Malmesbury does call him King William Rufus and spends some time describing him whereas Geoffrey de Gaimar who wrote before 1140 explains that he was called Rufus on account of his hair colouring.

It’s Orderic Vitalis who calls him William Rufus throughout his account and its probably from him that the name has stuck.

William was a third child after Robert and Richard and as as such may well have been intended, initially at least, for the church. If this was indeed the case he may have been more literate than historians give him credit for. Usually Henry II is identified as the first post-Conquest literate King of England. Essentially if you were going to be a knight and land owner you did not need to be able to read and write – someone else could do it for you.

As a third son his birth was not particularly auspicious – so history down not know the date.

We know that part of his education was overseen by Lanfranc of Bec who went on to become Archbishop of Canterbury. He could have been placed in monastic care from the age of five which might go some way towards explaining his antipathy towards the Church.

Richard died and William’s role in life may have been amended to reflect this. As Robert grew to adulthood he rebelled against his father. Again, William’s standing in society would have been affected by this but it is important to note that a boy’s military training began at the age of twelve and young William was noted for his aptitude in warfare in a family and court that trained hard in combat so if he had been destined for the church William changed his plan early on.

Popular quiz knowledge jumps William from his name to his death in the New Forest. For those with a greater knowledge base is the idea that he was a tad on the villainous side – which is impressive given that his father purportedly laid waste to the north and died being haunted due to the atrocities he committed. The idea of the villainous red king comes from the writings of Eadmer of Canterbury who tells the story of St Anselm. If Anselm is the hero of the tale, William Rufus is the villain.

Later writers took up Eadmer’s position, added the views of Henry I’s chroniclers who often denigrated William to “big up” Henry and his legal reforms – turning Henry into Beauclerk or the Lion of Justice whilst William resides in the role of avaricious thwarter of the church with a questionmark about his sexuality. The Anglo -Saxon Chronicle stated that William was “abhorrent to God.”

All of which seems a bit unfair given that William put down his uncle’s rebellion in short order (admittedly he reneged on the promises that he had made to the militia); secured his country’s northern borders and exerted control over his treasury (by failing to appoint bishops and abbots so he could draw the income from the vacant bishoprics and monasteries.) It was Rufus who cemented his father’s conquest of England using techniques familiar to any medieval king worth his salt.

Revisionist historians have argued that actually Henry benefited from his brother’s policies and that William has suffered on account of negative press. It cannot have helped that he alienated the Church and that they were the chroniclers of the period. It’s probably not good press when a saint attacks you for your licentious behaviour!

Absent voters of 1918

Well dear reader you were warned – I might get random for the next couple of months and this is a random but, I think, interesting post. Having researched my local war memorial for the centenary of the Armistice I became fascinated in a village context with the men who fought and returned and who are today largely anonymous except, perhaps, within their own direct family line. The research went into a folder to be sorted out at a later date…which has now arrived.

One of the sources that can grant a snap shot of the men who had left their homes to fight in the Great War is the Absentee Voters’ List. In 1918 there was an election. It was held almost immediately after the war ended on 4th December. The Representation of the People Act was passed by Lloyd George’s Coalition Government to make provision for those who were serving in an official capacity away from their homes – this included the armed services and the merchant navy for example. These voters could either vote by post or by proxy. Lists of the eligible had to be drawn up and voting forms distributed – no mean feat.

There is no central list of absent voters- though the British Library does hold much of the information. The information I found relating to my polling district was held by my local records office. Not all lists of absentee voters are complete and there are errors – not surprising given the number of voters involved. It is also a snapshot of a relatively short period of time. However, it does identify and provide a more substantial insight into the number of people who were serving in some capacity. The full name of the absent voter, their usual place of residence followed by their service number and regiment is provided. Sadly two of the names on my list also feature on the war memorial.

The absentee voters should have filled in the voting forms themselves according to what I’ve read but I do find myself wondering about the logistics of sending forms of eligibility off to the far flung corners of the globe and the chances of them getting back to the correct location given that the Representation of the People Act was granted Royal Assent on 6th Feb 1918 – and then for the correct voting forms to reach the correct destination in late November. I am for instance not sure that the men facing the German counter attack of March 1918 would have necessarily been overly bothered by the thought of filling in their voting application forms or for that matter the chances of forms arriving at the right destination. It seems more likely that individual household supplied the information in the first instance – I shall continue reading to see what else I can find out about the process.

In any event Absentee Voters’ Lists are a very useful resource indeed to local historians and are also a very good example of the fact that even modern mass produced documents give pause for thought in terms of who wrote the material; is the information correct; which bits of the jigsaw does the primary source provide and which pieces might be wrong or missing.

The Representation of the People Act increased the number of people eligible to vote. Men over the age of twenty-one could now vote whether they owned land or not. Many of the men on the list I have would not have been eligible to vote before this point because of their status within society. The act also gave women over the age of thirty and who held property, or whose husbands’ held property with a rateable value of £5.00 or more the right to vote.

It would take another ten years before women were allowed to vote on the same terms as men. The election of 1929 was known as the Flapper Election because of the number of women voting. My grandmother voted for the first time in 1929 having been told by my grandfather prior to going to vote who she should vote for – I really do hope that once she was inside the voting booth that she voted for who she thought was the best candidate irrelevant of what she’d been told by her spouse half an hour previously.

The Conqueror and the Scots

Most people think that in the aftermath of 1066, having won the Battle of Hastings, that William the Conqueror was able to sit back on his newly acquired throne and twiddle his fingers – after all the story is the Conquest of England and that is usually where the topic stops if you are a school child.

However, William spent the rest of his life dealing with rebellions both in England and in Normandy. His neighbours in Normandy also assumed that if William was in England that the Norman border would make an easy target.

As a result of the various rebellions in England many of the Saxon nobility sought shelter at the Scottish court of Malcolm III. He ended up married to Edgar the Atheling’s sister Margaret in 1071 – who renowned for her piety became St Margaret. Edgar with his family arrived in Scotland in 1068 having previously submitted to William only to join with Gospatrick of Northumbria to rebel against William. According to legend the family was on board a vessel destined for the Continent, remember they were originally from Hungary before being invited by Edward the Confessor to return to England.

So far as Malcolm was concerned his marriage to Margaret gave him a claim to the English throne – stories tend to linger more on the romance of the fleeing princess rather than the potential for a land grab. It was an opportunity for Malcolm to expand his borders southwards during times when William had his hands full elsewhere. He celebrated his marriage by invading various bits of Northumberland and Cumberland. It is probable that he was looking to establish a secure border and annex Cumberland which the Normans had not yet got around to quelling aside from the easily accessible coastal areas.

In 1072 William, having dealt with the revolting Northerners, turned his attention to the Scots. He sent an army across the border as well as a fleet of ships. The Scots and the Normans met at Abernethy in Perthshire. Malcom lost the ensuing battle and he was forced to sign the Treaty of Abernethy. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that Malcolm agreed to become William’s man and his son Duncan was handed over as surety for future good behaviour. Edgar was asked politely to leave Scotland and William gave Malcom lands in Cumberland – but which in reality did not receive the Norman stamp until the reign of William Rufus – and even then in times of trouble the Scots were quick to shift the border south. Just as an aside the Norman habit of giving Scottish nobility land in the north of England as a way of turning them into liege men did ultimately change the Scottish language and the politics of the region.

This all sounds very clear cut but the Normans did not successfully invade Scotland – Scotland remained firmly in the hands of the Scots – albeit a Scottish court which many felt was becoming anglicised by the presence of Margaret, her children by Malcolm and the assorted ragtag of Saxons who had sought shelter across the border.

Throughout this period there were skirmishes and battles across the borders between England and Scotland. In 1079 the treaty had to be re-imposed after a Norman army skirmished across the border in retaliation for Malcolm’s incursions into Northumberland.

The treaty broke down completely in 1093. Malcom was killed at the Battle of Alnwick on the 13th November and Margaret, apparently from grief, died on the 16th November. Malcolm was succeeded by his brother Donald.