The ‘Ideal’ Sorceress: Gender Ideology and the Stereotypical Witch.

Why is it that on hearing the word ‘witch’, I immediately think of scary old ladies? If you are anything like me and have seen one too many Disney films, it’s not hard to see where the stereotype is reinforced in our modern society. J K Rowling has done a good job at making witches a little less hunchbacked and wart-covered, but it is the image of the old, decrepit widow with a vendetta against society is what will always endure. This image of a witch became prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it is possible to glean some insight into how people thought about women at the time when such an image became deeply rooted in the common psyche. In religious terms, women were complete contradictions (how could they be both Eve and the Virgin Mary?) and so were regarded as inconstant and suspicious. This might be the reason why, at a basic level, women were the ones accused of witchcraft.

The primary concern of a community was maleficia. This type of magic had long standing associations with the cunning-folk who were a constant in English communities from the Middle Ages. They are described as possessing a multitude of skills, including healing and love magic, and interestingly counter-magic for those who believed themselves bewitched. Obviously these cunning folk had a place within the community, albeit ambiguous and open to suspicion as their quasi-pagan practices were both strange and invaluable. Cunning-folk were often older, widowed women, whose ‘magical’ services provided income, thus reinforcing the image of a witch as a marginalised female in popular thought. When the post-Reformation push to rid society of these cunning folk began a programme of persecution, these marginalised women were the first in the firing line.

Maleficia, natural misfortunes without obvious explanation, were additionally more prevalent in spheres naturally attributed to women, such as cooking, midwifery or nursing. It was generally recognised that these particular roles offered women better opportunities to practice malign magic; thus inviting accusation. For example, in 1661, a lady named Helen Grey was nursing a boy extremely ill with kidney stones. The pain made him hallucinate, and as a result he accused Helen of witchcraft. To back this up, a neighbour said that it was Helen who had made her bread go sour using maleficium. Helen’s involvement in the care of the sick and preparation of food, vocations natural to her sex, left her vulnerable to charges of witchcraft. Other professions, such as midwifery or wet-nursing, were exclusively female roles, and thus the male exclusion gave fertile ground for the suspicion of women. Demonological theory, prevalent in the state driven witch-hunts, associated midwives with diabolism through their proximity to unbaptized children as these infants could be acquired for ceremonial sacrifice. High mortality rates in young children only served to ‘prove’ the notion that it was women who caused such suffering. Evidently, the roles attributed to women made then vulnerable to suspicion, demonstrating that gender ideology did contribute to the image of the stereotypical witch.

Women who didn’t sit quietly, as gender ideology dictated, were also open to suspicion. Suspicion also developed over time, explaining why women accused of witchcraft were of advanced age. For example, Jane Wenham is described in 1712 as ‘…and old woman over seventy who had a very unsavoury reputation in the village.’ Age and reputation evidently work against here in this case. And to add fuel to the fire, Jane was a widow. In Kent, 75 per cent of those accused were unmarried women. This is because widows were both estranged from and dependant on the parish, as they had no other means of income. Giving alms was an integral part of society, but doing so became more difficult in the economic downturns of 1550 to 1650. This created a ‘gulf of misunderstanding and suspicion’ between the social orders of a parish, and the resulting guilt and fear of retribution undoubtedly contributed to accusations of witchcraft. This was especially prevalent as old, widowed women were naturally connected to cunning-magic, thereby giving her a vehicle for revenge. That many accusations of maleficia begin with the refusal of alms adds credence to this view.

On the other hand, when the hunt was run by the state rather than the community, the focus was on diabolism. This includes all the gruesome practices like child sacrifice and sexual relations with the Devil. Specialist contemporary writings such as the Malleus Maleficarum and On the Demon-Mania of Witches strengthened the connections between women and witchcraft. According to the Malleus, women were witches because they were weaker, feebler and more impressionable than men, thus falling more easily into the clutches of evil spirits. Although being described as ‘intensely misogynistic’, the Malleus is useful because it overtly expresses the ideas held by many members of the elite concerning the female state and constitution. This undoubtedly bolstered the female witch stereotypes as it drew on her weak and fundamentally wicked nature to explain and justify the presence of witchcraft.

Additionally, there is a focus on female sexuality; a pivotal factor in the demonological stereotype of a female witch. This opinion is reflected in the writings of Jean Bodin who claims that all witches had a sexual relationship with the Devil. As the Devil was male, women were considered his natural mates, so implicating women on their gender alone. This view stemmed from male concerns about female sexuality, particularly highlighted by the carnal image of women endorsed by the clergy. In this respect, it could be argued that widows were accused of witchcraft because their status as experienced women without the restraints of a male patriarch made them sexually threatening to men. This element of the witch stereotype is displayed in the works of Hans Baldung Grien, a German artist who in the sixteenth century depicted witches as the embodiment of female sexual power.

To sum up, this brief assessment of the witch in early modern England demonstrates why it was women, not men, who felt the brunt of witchcraft accusations. There was a polarised view of the world; men were rational and strong whilst women were physically and morally weak. The state’s focus on diabolism reflected these moral concerns. Documents such as the Malleus Maleficarum served to enforce this view, harnessing the classical and religious interpretations of fundamental evil to enforce the female stereotype. Women also became the focus of accusations due to her position within the community, dictated by the gender ideologies of household and a submissive relationship to the patriarchal society. For example, a community’s concern with maleficia became tied to the image of women through her designated roles, buttressed by the traditional interrelation of widows and cunning-magic that had endured for centuries. Undoubtedly elements of misogyny do creep into the stereotype, particularly clear in the Malleus wherein Kramer and Sprenger barely associate women with humanity. This once again reflects the paradoxical nature of womanhood in this period, a key factor in driving gender ideology and creating the witch stereotype of pre-industrial England.

Sources

Amussen, S.D., ‘Gender, Family and the Social Order, 1560-1725’, in Fletcher, A., and Stevenson, J., (eds), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985), pp.196-217.

Davies, O., Cunning-Folk, Popular Magic in English History, (New York, 2003).

Gaskill, M., ‘Witchcraft and power in Early Modern England: The Case of Margaret Moore,’ in Kermonde, J., and Walker, G., (eds), Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England, (London, 2003), pp.125-145.

Guskin, P. J., ‘The Context of Witchcraft: The Case of Jane Wenham (1712)’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 15 (1981), pp.48-71.

Holmes, C., ‘Women: witnesses and witches’, Past and Present, 140 (1993), pp.45-78.

King, M. L., Women of the Renaissance, (Chicago, 1991), pp.1-2

Levack, B. P., (2^nd ed), The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe, (London, 1995).

Scott A. R., and Pearl J. L., (trans), Bodin, J., On the Demon-Mania of Witches, (Toronto, 1995),

Summers, M., (trans), The Malleus Maleficarum of Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, (New York, 1971)

Zguta, R., ‘Witchcraft Trials in Seventeenth Century Russia,’ American Historical Review, 82 (1977), pp.1187-1207.

Heretics in Sixteenth-Century England

Welcome to Minorities Month on our blog! Today I’m going to discuss the term ‘heretics’ as a minority in Tudor England. After Henry VII’s victory at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, the sixteenth century became dominated by a new and eventually infamous dynasty known as The Tudors. The severing of the Church with Rome in 1534 confused the definition of ‘heretic’ and left people in a state of ambiguity regarding which faith was ‘legal’ under Henry VIII and his heirs that would follow. This is not the story of ‘Catholics’ or ‘Protestants’ as such, since both of these groups would become heretics or traitors under Tudor rule at some point in the sixteenth century, but rather an insight into how suddenly a group or person could be declared a criminal when so previously praised for their ‘true’ faith. In this article, the status and treatment of ‘heretics’ under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I will briefly be examined.

Up until 1534, England was part of the unified Catholic Church under Papal authority in Rome. Anybody who did not accept Catholic doctrine or recognize the Pope as Head of the Catholic Church was immediately labelled a heretic and, if unrepentant, put to death by burning at the stake. The first heretical threat to England under Henry VIII was Protestantism, a new and radical movement that gained influence in the 1520s rooting from Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Thesis in Germany. Luther promoted personal faith and Bible-reading, attacked idolatry, the Pope, transubstantiation and many other aspects of Catholic doctrine. Thomas More, a deeply religious Catholic who took the post of Chancellor after Wolsey’s fall, began to crack down on heresy, viewing it as a spreading disease. He saw it as his duty to exterminate Protestants to protect the ‘true’ faith, and burnt a total of six people during his short rule of power, who were charged for accusations such as distributing banned books.

Yet in a drawn-out, England-altering battle with the Pope to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII decided to split with Rome in 1534 and create his own Church of England, allowing him as Supreme Head to do as he pleased within it. The Oath of Supremacy enforced his subjects to recognize him, and not the Pope, as Head of the English Church – and to deny it was treason, punishable by death. The tables had now turned for Thomas More, who would not sign the Oath and acknowledge Henry as Head of the Church instead of the Pope due to his ‘conscience’. Despite his long-term friendship with the King, Henry had him executed in July 1535 in the Tower.

As Henry became more radical and introduced pro-Protestant doctrine, influenced by Anne Boleyn as some would argue, the Catholics that had experienced one faith their entire lives were seen as a threat to Henry’s authority and for the first time in England it was them, and not the Protestants who had been previously persecuted, that were now seen as the heretics and traitors.

Yet the situation would change again. With unstable foreign policy and an ageing Henry yearning Spanish support whilst tackling France, he introduced The Act of Six Articles which consisted of mostly Catholic doctrine in the hopes of pleasing Catholic Spain (and perhaps the rebels following the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536). The Protestants that had gained influence from the split with Rome were now expected to revert to a more conservative and traditional faith, even to the point of accepting Transubstantiation. At this point the confusion and insecurity of the religious people in England can be understood. It was not as easy to unofficially change the state’s religion now, however. The Protestant movement had finally been given the chance to grow and build communities in England and it was not going to back down without a fight. Anne Askew is the only woman in English history to have been tortured at the Tower of London on the rack before being burnt at the stake. According to Henry, when informed of the woman’s interrogation (which was against the law),  he replied “from the word of God, we know that the Devil takes many forms.” Askew’s links within Protestantism were strong, though. Support for her and the movement she promoted can perhaps be seen by an anonymous person placing gunpowder around her neck before the flames were lit, resulting in a quicker and easier death.

Henry VIII’s death in 1547 paved the way for the Protestant factions surrounding his son and heir, Edward VI, to reinstate the Protestant doctrine and continue to dissolve the monasteries for financial gain. As Edward was a minor, however, no Catholics were tried or executed during this point except those involved the Western Rebellion of 1549.

The situation reversed in 1553 after Mary I (or ‘Bloody Mary’) took her rightful place on the throne from Lady Jane Grey, the Nine Day’s Queen. A staunch Catholic who resented the Reformation under her father, viewed as the cause of her and her mother’s suffering, Mary intended to restore the true faith to England in the counter-Reformation and finally put an end to heresy (or Protestantism). Infamously known for her burnings, Mary executed approximately 287 men and women during her short reign, a colossal figure even for the gory time period. Although she had achieved in reuniting England with Rome, she was resented by Protestants and even some Catholics for her brutality, exposing the majority of London the stench of burning flesh.

Elizabeth I, following Mary’s sudden death, immediately reinstated the Act of Supremacy and became Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Her ‘Protestant’ regime aimed to please both Catholics and Protestants alike, and at the beginning, there were no persecutions of either faith since Elizabeth showed little interest for personal religion. This all changed, however, when Mary Queen of Scot’s sparked the Catholic threat in England, and the Northern Rebellion began in 1569. When excommunicated by the Pope, Elizabeth cracked down on Catholics (or rather ‘traitors’) to secure her political position. Most were beheaded or hanged rather than burnt, including Mary, Queen of Scot’s herself. This would be the only safe point to say, however, that Catholics were truly a minority in Tudor England. The Reformation that introduced Protestantism in Henry VIII’s reign had now planted a deep root in the English Church and as the older generation died out, few disgruntled Catholics remained. Elizabeth’s paranoia regarding a Catholic conspiracy leading up to the Spanish Armada, however, blew the threat of remaining Catholics out of realistic proportion.

If we had lived in the sixteenth century, we must have been very religiously-versatile in order to survive. And because of the unbreakable integration of religion and politics, this was never really possible. With each monarch, or new political situation, came different laws on what was heretical and what was not. A heretic under Henry VIII in 1520 would be praised from 1534 (H VIII – Act of Supremacy), burnt from 1539 (H VIII – Act of Six Articles), secure from 1547 (Edward VI), one of Bloody Mary’s victims from 1553, and favoured from 1558 (Eliz. I). As explored, Catholics were not always safer than Protestants, either. It appears it was safest to remain loyal to the King/Queen before the Church in such a temperamental religious climate in sixteenth-century Tudor England.

The Tragedy of Lady Jane Grey

A romanticist view: The Execution of Lady Jane Grey by Paul Delaroche, 1833

Also known as the ‘Nine Days’ Queen’, Lady Jane Grey remains a surprisingly overlooked figure in English History. Most people today with a degree of interest in the past will perhaps recognise her from Paul Delaroche’s infamous and romantic portrait of her execution, despite its exceptional inaccuracy, yet are not aware of Jane’s story or the reason why she had to die at the age of sixteen in February, 1554.

Unfortunately, her childhood was not so less pleasant than the tragic end she met in the Tower of London. Lady Jane was certainly of royal blood, even if her claim was weaker than that of Henry VIII’s bastardized daughters; the Lady Mary (later to become ‘Bloody Mary’) and the Lady Elizabeth (Elizabeth I). In 1515, Henry VIII’s sister Mary hastily married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk after Louis XII of France, her previous husband, died (without Henry’s approval, however, resulting in their temporary loss from the King’s favour). During their marriage Frances Brandon was born, and in turn Frances married Henry Grey in 1533 and became the mother of three daughters: Jane, Catherine and Mary. Jane Grey was the eldest, and therefore the most susceptible to her mother and father’s vicious agenda for wealth and status, eventually becoming a tool in the great game of politics.

It is important to lay out the Succession Act upon Henry VIII’s death in 1547 to understand what went wrong when Edward VI died 1553/4. Only from Henry VIII’s third marriage to Jane Seymour did he finally produce his longed-for heir; a son to succeed him and thus continue the Tudor dynasty, something that Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had failed to do. Edward, contrary to popular opinion, was a healthy child and did not suffer from long-term illness as frequently thought. Three more marriages would follow after Jane Seymour’s sudden death from childbed fever in order to further secure the succession. Surviving past childhood was never a guarantee and this fact was a part of Tudor life. Henry would attempt, but without any success, to have more sons by Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, but his fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves was never consummated – the King claimed she ‘looked like a horse’. So, in 1547 when Henry knew he was dying, he altered the Succession Act to reinstate his two bastardized daughters. First would be Edward – then, if Edward died without any heirs, the Crown would pass to Mary, Henry’s eldest daughter. And if Mary died without any heirs, the youngest daughter Elizabeth would become Queen.

Lady Jane Grey, The Streatham Portrait

The Grey Family were known Protestants and saw the accession of Edward VI, a Protestant also governed by a Protestant Council, as an opportunity to gain greater influence and power in England. Jane’s upbringing was strict and harsh. She preferred to spend her time studying and reading than surround herself in extravagancies. An account of her childhood is written by her own hand: “For when I am in the presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand or go, eat, drink, be merry or sad, be sewing, playing, dancing, or doing anything else, I must do it as it were in such weight, measure and number, even so perfectly as God made the world; or else I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea presently sometimes with pinches, nips and bobs and other ways (which I will not name for the honour I bear them) … that I think myself in hell.” When Jane did not comply with her parent’s orders, she was often beaten brutally with a cane. Despite her harsh treatment, Jane was sincerely religious. She enjoyed doctrinal debates and challenging Catholic ideas, and always remained a devout Protestant.

Frances and Henry Grey plotted their first move by attempting to push Lady Jane into Edward VI’s sphere – a marriage between their daughter and the King of England would ensure their political security, also allowing them to use Jane as a puppet to influence the rule of England. Throughout all the scheming, Lady Jane had no knowledge of her parent’s aims and certainly had no agenda to take the Crown for herself. It was clear to everybody, even to Mary I who would take the Crown back from Jane, that she had never wanted to become Queen. However, the Grey’s initial plot failed, as a King marrying one of his own subjects was never seen as glorious as a foreign marriage and thus an alliance, so Lord Protector Somerset did not consider the marriage proposal.

In 1549 Lord Protector Somerset was overthrown for his unpopular policies and replaced with Northumberland, though still Protestant, to act as regent until Edward VI came of age. Although he brought about more success than Somerset, Northumberland was a greedy, ambitious man who was prepared to risk eventually his life in order to gain power. When it became clear that Edward VI was dying from tuberculosis in 1553, concern aroused for England’s future. Edward had no heirs, and next in line was Mary – a staunch Catholic who would without a doubt reverse all of the Protestant work that had been done, and, more significantly, be rid of Northumberland and his Protestant council. Their choice of religion could also lead to their future execution as heretics. This could not happen. A conspiracy then emerged between Frances, Henry Grey and Northumberland to block Mary from the succession and find a pro-Protestant to put on the throne. There was no more fitting candidate than the Lady Jane Grey. Northumberland convinced a dying Edward to save the hard work they had achieved by leaving a Will with his command that Jane would become Queen on his death. It is debatable how much influence Edward in this conspiracy, but it appears he did not want his Catholic sister to succeed him, either. To ensure Northumberland remained powerful, he proposed a marriage between his son, Guildford Dudley, to the future Queen. This went ahead swiftly, with some reluctance from Jane, although she had no idea about the greater plans in store for her. The relationship between Jane and Guildford was not so intimate at the start of their marriage but their union turned out to be a meaningful and heartfelt one, particularly during their later captivity.

Edward VI, by William Scrots, c. 1550

Edward VI died on 6 July 1553. His death was supposed to be kept secret for as long as possible, in order to confirm the preparations for Jane’s coronation at the Tower. However, news of Edward’s death leaked, and so Mary had been busy rallying her own troops from estates such as Norfolk, ready to fight for the Crown, not making shy of the fact she was Henry VIII’s daughter, but did not mention religion. Jane was hastily crowned on 10 July but Mary was proclaimed Queen on 19 July. Despite Northumberland’s resistance, Mary arrived in London on 3 August with a wave of support for her Tudor blood, and arrested all of the conspirators and released the old Catholic prisoners in the Tower. Lady Jane Grey and her husband Guildford Dudley were also imprisoned, although Mary knew too well of their innocence in the coup. Mary assured Jane that she and her husband would be issued a pardon once pleading guilty at their trials. There was no other option but to trust the new Queen, but she stuck to her word – a pardon was issued but they would stay in the Tower until the political situation had calmed. Upon their arrival, Jane and Guildford had very limited freedom within the Tower, but by 1554 they were frequently allowed to visit each other and wander outside the walls into the town with supervision, and as a result the pair grew closer. It is not too far to say that Jane was perhaps the happiest whilst imprisoned: a promise of freedom, a loving husband, an environment with no scheming parents, and the love and forgiveness of the Queen.

During Jane’s imprisonment, Mary I, who had never married and always desired love in her life, was arranging to marry Philip II of Spain. Although far younger than her, the Queen appears to have fallen in love simply from his portraits and letters. He was also a Catholic and Mary was desperate to bear children in order to secure the succession. Jane’s circumstances were likely to have remained optimistic if it weren’t for Wyatt’s Rebellion in 1554. On the surface it appeared to be a rebellion in opposition to the Spanish marriage, yet rumours of a conspiracy emerged that those involved aimed to put a pro-Protestant on the throne – and by no fault of Jane herself, it was her that emerged as the candidate, alongside the Lady Elizabeth. Philip II was not prepared to marry into a country that was politically unstable. Mary had to choose between her innocent cousin the Tower, or the chance of a Catholic future: a loving marriage and heirs to continue her regime. As a result, her advisers pushed her to execute Jane and her husband to end the threat of a Protestant rule.

Portrait of Mary I by Antonis Mor, 1554

Mary did not want to kill Jane. First, she put her under an examination to determine whether or not she was pregnant. If she was, she would be spared execution. But there was no sign that Jane was with child. The sixteen year old’s threat would be completely eradicated if she were Catholic, removing her position as a focal point for the Protestant cause. Mary sent her priest to the Tower multiple times in order to hold doctrinal debates with Jane and attempt to convert her to Catholicism. It didn’t work. Jane was very devout to her faith and strongly opposed the main areas of Catholicism, such as the idea of transubstantiation. Mary realized that Jane would always be a threat with her claim to the throne, and would move both heaven and earth before losing Philip as her potential husband. Finally, Mary was won over by her advisors and excitement for marriage, and sent a messenger to tell Jane and Guildford that their pardons had been revoked and they were to die; Guildford on Tower Hill and Jane on Tower Green. After the stresses of Jane’s life, it is noted that she was quite glad to depart earth. Guildford was not so calm at the prospect. On the wall of the Beauchamp Tower where he was imprisoned, the carving ‘Iane’ can still be seen today. He also sent a message to Mary, asking if he could see his wife one last time before their executions. Moved, the Queen accepted, but when Jane heard of this she declined to see Guildford, saying that it would take away whatever strength they had left in order to die with dignity, something Jane was determined to ensure.

There were only two occasions of distress during Jane’s last day alive. Guildford was taken from the Beauchamp Tower to die first, and as Jane watched from her window, he turned and smiled. They both had a final wave to one another, and so Guildford was led to Tower Hill. With a stammering speech, he knelt and was beheaded. His bloody body was taken back to the Tower in a cart, and Jane most certainly caught a glimpse of her dead husband, having cried: “Oh Guildford, Guildford!” They then came for Jane, and led her to the scaffold on Tower Green, not inside a dungeon as Paul Delaroche’s portrait suggests. She was extremely brave for a girl of sixteen, but when she was blindfolded and knelt before the block, a horrifying scene emerged. Jane had knelt too far away from it and when she reached out with her hands, she faltered. Blind, and unable to feel the block, she panicked, reaching out with her arms left, right and center: “Where is it?” She said. “What shall I do?” At Tudor executions, the ritual was never interrupted and it was an extremely formal occasion. Nobody had ever witnessed such a thing and as a result both those accompanying Jane on the scaffold and those in the audience froze up. Complete silence fell as nobody knew what to do. Eventually, it is claimed that someone from the audience jumped up and led her hand to the block, whereas other sources claim the Lieutenant on the scaffold helped. Finally, it was over. Lady Jane Grey was dead, and buried in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula alongside her husband.

Mary would go on to earn the title of “Bloody Mary” as a result of her extreme religious policy, burning approximately 300 Protestant men and women in just three years, until her death in 1558. Elizabeth I succeeded her and unified England under a Protestant regime. Her reign is still known today as “The Golden Age”.

Bibliography

Ives, E., Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery (2011)

Weir, A., Innocent Traitor (2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey

The Trials of Henry IV

At the turn of the fourteenth century, Henry Bolingbroke was about to make the biggest decision of his life. Not only would he regain his Lancastrian inheritance, but the entire kingdom of England would be his – forever altering the course of history. All that stood in his way was his cousin, Richard II. To Henry, Richard was no longer his blood. The king had banished and stolen all his lands from him, sued for peace with France, and in his greatest act of tyranny trialed and executed the Lords Appellant. As Henry stepped upon English sand after the long years spent in France, he knew that it was do or die.

Henry IV, Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Well, it’s hard to say if Henry really intended to take the throne of England when he returned from his exile, so you must excuse my dramatic spin. But what is undeniable is that Henry’s decision to usurp his cousin was bold, reckless and dangerous. Even if he succeeded, he would be a usurper – generally politically unstable, particularly as Richard’s named heir, Edmund Mortimer, still lived. What I intend to examine here is whether or not all of the issues surrounding Henry’s reign resulted directly from that daring and spine-chilling decision.

The diplomatic situations with France and Scotland suffered at the hands of Henry’s usurpation to varying degrees. As mentioned, Richard had sued for peace with France, essentially stalling the Hundred Years War through better relations and a marriage to the child-bride, Isabella. Richard’s deposition certainly disrupted these terms, and additionally highlighted the fallibility of a king with such a ‘French’ style and attitude to his crown. Henry, unlike Richard, was also regarded suspiciously by the Gascons which meant that the ambitious duc d’Orleans could begin to wriggle into Aquitaine. Piracy was rife in the channel, unchecked by either government, and by 1403 French armies descended on Aquitaine and Calais. The cost of warfare weighed heavily on Henry’s already struggling government, approximately £1,300 per year, and A. L. Brown and H. Summerson relay an anecdote that the treasury could not even pay messengers to deliver urgent summons to bishops, earls, barons and knights across the realm. Ironically, the messages asked them to gather at Westminster to discuss finances. It is true that finance was an endemic problem for a medieval government, but the breakdown in diplomatic relations between England and France were at least exasperated by the usurpation. Similarly, Scotland suffered from the violent change of king. Richard had begun to improve on relations with Robert III of Scotland, whereas Henry (apparently) encouraged the encroachment of the ambitious Percy family into the borders. In both of these cases, the evidence is in favour of Henry’s usurpation directly causing trouble in the realm.

Another problem directly resulting from the deposition of Richard II came in the form of the Percy Rebellion. At one time they had been the most loyal of all the northern baronages to Henry’s cause, and the kingmakers were rewarded smartly for their pains with power and titles, including the position of Constable of England. But was this too much? Richard had recognised that they were a threat, but through Henry’s rewards the consolidation of northern power was dangerous. The relationship between the king and the Percy’s was rocky; amongst other grievances the exchequer rolls show that the Percy’s were only paid peace time wages for their involvement in the Scottish and Welsh conflicts. Teamed with a dispute over the custody of an influential hostage, things came to a violent climax at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. The Percy’s had turned their coats and declared for Richard II. This could have been devastating for the usurper who relied so heavily on his northern supporters, and his miscalculation of patronage helped to give them the power to threaten the crown. This was a mistake directly resulting from the usurpation.

The Welsh Rebellion (1400-1408) is a little harder to define. Above all else, it was opportunistic. The fall of Richard II caused a period of political instability which could be seized as a window of opportunity. However, the reasons for the rebellion ran much deeper than the events of 1399-1400. Harsh fiscal policies from the crown and resentment at English settlers had created unrest in Wales. As a considerable Welsh landowner, Henry required the stability of his Welsh estates to supplement his income (already stained by warfare) and therefore disruption in Wales could have been disastrous. This was something Glendower would surely have recognised, speeding the moves towards rebellion. Evidently the usurpation encouraged the problems in Wales but was not the sole cause of them.

In some respects, Henry’s failing health could be seen as the most dangerous threat to the new Lancastrian kingship, and it was a problem completely independent of the usurpation (despite the opinions of some contemporaries). Henry had been an active and warlike youth; a famous jouster, and he even went on a Lithuanian crusade with the Teutonic Knights in 1390. However, by June 1405 something had changed. Evidence suggests that the king may have suffered a stroke, and from then on he was never fully himself again. This could have been the end of the Lancastrian dynasty as a king’s health reflected his political strength, and Henry was still trying to consolidate and legitimise his power. The ‘Thirty One Articles’, closing tightly to support the king, as well as the increased use of the signet seal, show that Henry was absent from court. This created political tensions as power vacuums were fought over; factions even emerged between the princes, Henry’s two sons. However, the succession acts in 1406 secured Prince Henry’s place as heir, and as a result the Lancastrian kingship survived. Amongst other things, news of a physically weak king could have encouraged further rebellions such as those in Wales that relied heavily on opportunity.

So by way of conclusion, Henry IV’s reign was a turbulent one. Many other factors, omitted from this post for the purpose of brevity, can also be studied for a better understanding of this interesting king and his testing time on the throne. The usurpation undoubtedly caused come issues directly, such as the problems with France and the Percy Rebellion, whereas the Welsh Revolt under Owen Glendower was more opportunistic and had been building for years. Finance would always have plagued an already troubled mind, and then the failing of Henry’s health so soon after the usurpation undoubtedly caused tongues to stir. However, this great threat was not caused but the usurpation, and actually Henry ruled almost without opposition in his latter years. His parliament helped to ‘keep up appearances’ and in actuality, Henry V succeeded the throne to a strong and secure government, despite the violent and reckless nature of its conception.

Sources

Biggs, D., ‘The Politics of Health: Henry IV and the Long Parliament of 1406’, writing in Biggs, D. and Dodd, G., Henry IV: Establishment of the Regime, 1399-1406, (Suffolk, 2003), pp 185-202

Arvanigian, M., ‘Henry IV, the Northern Nobility and the Consolidation of the Regime’, writing in Biggs, D. and Dodd, G., Henry IV: Establishment of the Regime, 1399-1406, (Suffolk, 2003), pp 117-137

A. L. Brown, Henry Summerson, ‘Henry IV (1367–1413)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2010 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12951, accessed 12 March 2012]

Mortimer, I., The Fears of Henry IV, The Life of England’s Self-Made King, (Vauxhall, 2008)

The Stoke Mandeville Games

Olympics. One word that inspires the world, attempts to bring about friendly competition, something that makes the world seem that bit smaller, creates something in which everyone can get behind, old… young; sporting… or not boys girls it doesn’t matter everyone joins in and gets into the spirit of things and enjoys the spectacle of it all. The wonder of the opening and closing ceremonies, The competition the athletes showing their amazing sporting ability, simply I think one f the greatest events that the world has to share and be a part of. Ok so I’m a bit biased I’m British and the games were in my home country so yes I might have a more positive outlook on things. However if you asked me to sum up the Olympics in one word I think the only word that fits is inspiration. Although we’ll see if it’s inspirational quality has rubbed off on me, a book loving non sporty type, and actually got me to take up a sport… we’ll see as my dad says ‘stranger things have happened’.

So what has the Stoke Mandeville games, the title of this post, have anything to do with the Olympics I hear you ask. Well, in researching for my blog post this month I was toying with a few ideas, the introduction of the modern Olympics, the impact of women in the Olympics, however I was watching a BBC drama ‘The Best of Men’ (watch it if you can its really good), the drama depicts the birth of the Paralympics in 1944, as wounded and paralysed soldiers under their German doctor regain their strength through sport, leading to the creation of a national games and then the Paralympics in 1948. This programme changed my blog entirely, and so here it goes…

The Second World War as we all know was bloody conflict with high wounded and causalities all as a result of war efforts both civil and military. However there was one question left afterwards, after the battle was won and the soldiers and the civilians return home, the same question that I’m sure occurs after every form of conflict, what do we do now? How do we go on from here? And this question becomes even more complicated when you are dealing with men and women who have done their bit for their country and now as a result of their bravery are left in a paralysed condition, from which they and occasionally professionals too see no hope of a future, in a world where paralysed… meant cripple… meant that they could not be functioning members of regular society. Something, that can perhaps seem slightly alien to us as we sit in a world where disability is more easily recognised and taken into account, well at least to an extent.

Well our story starts in Germany where at the age of 18 Ludwig Guttmann volunteered at his local hospital or coal miners as an orderly. Here he witnessed an incident which left a lasting mark upon him, the death of a coal miner who was admitted with a broken back and was paralysed from the waist down. However Guttmann was astonished to see this man left in plaster and moved away from other patients where he developed infections, and five weeks later the miner passed away. In 1918 Ludwig Guttmann started his medical studies at the university of Breslau passing in 1923 and taking a job in neurology and neurosurgery. With the rise of Hitler in 1933 and Guttmann’s growing reputation he was able to take up a position in Oxford, England in 1939 where he undertook various research projects. As the war progressed and the growing number of causalities and the government decided to open up a spinal injuries ward to deal with the victims, and in September 1943 Dr Guttmann was asked to head the ward, at Stoke Mandeville.

It was whilst at Stoke Mandeville Dr Guttmann, created the movement which later became the Paralympic games. After caring for his patients and changing the way in which they were looked after which lessened the amount of sores and infections they received, before beginning to change their mental outlook to through the introduction of sports, and allowing them to learn new skills such as wood work and typing that would enable them to reintegrate into society, by helping them to become employable. In July 1948 Dr Guttmann held the first contest which would later spark of the idea for the Paralympics, an archery contest between the star and garter hospital of Richmond and the patients at Stoke Mandeville, with the former winning. A year later, 1949, more hospitals and patients took part in what become known as the Stoke Mandeville Games.

“It was here Guttmann uttered the words for which he has forever been associated with: ‘I foresaw the time when this sports event would be truly international and the Stoke Mandeville Games would achieve world fame as the disabled person’s equivalent of the Olympic Games’ (The Cord, 1949).”

So with that the beginning of what became the Paralympics was over and now many athletes with varied disabilities come to compete in the Paralympic games, an integral part of the modern Olympics, and so in reference to my earlier definition as the Olympics being an inspiration to the rest of us and I definitely think that the Paralympics fits that description. In addition, the games are also a testament idea of anything is possible with, courage, a bit of hard work and a one very good doctor.

Sources

http://www.abilityvability.co.uk/files/factsheets/FS3%20-%20The%20Stoke%20Mandeville%20Games%201948.pdf

http://www.paralympics.org.uk/games

William the Conqueror’s England and its relations with the Papacy

In this blog update I am going to talk about William the Conqueror and his relation with the Papacy concerning the Post-Conquest English church. As everyone knows William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 and defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings leaving the kingdom under Norman rule. This famous period in English history has often been remembered solely because of the landmark battle but not so much in regards to what came after, particularly the religious aspects.  Therefore I aim to look at the approaches by both the Papacy and the Normans to reach an agreement over how the church will be controlled.

The Papacy had begun a series of reforms to the European churches under its influence in the eleventh century and the Pope wanted to bring these reforms into the newly conquered English kingdom with the support of King William. These reforms were concerned with morality and practice within the church and from the 1040s onwards there were attempts to suppress the customs that many of the higher clergy thought unfit for their flock. Therefore in the eyes of the Papacy the English church was in need of reform. As it would soon be seen in England, William was not against removing church figures from their posts if needed; in the mid-1050s William deposed his uncle Malgar as Archbishop of Rouen and Primate of Normandy for simony.

Upon entering the English kingdom, both William and a group of papal legates removed another individual from office due to his corruption; the Archbishop of Canterbury Stigand. Stigand faced three charges when the papal legates arrived in 1070 to crown William king and bring England back into the influence of the Roman church. At the Winchester Council he was charged with; continuing to hold the see of Winchester whilst being Archbishop of Canterbury, taking the archbishopric whilst Robert of Jumiege was still alive and using in mass the pallium (a woollen cloak bestowed by the Pope to those with jurisdiction over bishoprics and archbishoprics) that belonged to Jumiege. With Stigand deposed, the church could be reformed alongside the standards of the Continent.

Clerical marriage was also a problem for the Papacy when renewing their influence over the English churches. However at the Council at Winchester in 1076 the new Archbishop of Canterbury Lanfranc shrewdly avoided a general condemnation of the practice and contended himself with legislation to make clerical marriages impossible in the future. Therefore the Conqueror and the Papacy indeed followed some of the same policies towards the English church when it would suit both sides. Reforming the English church gave the Normans a further degree of legitimacy in their conquest whilst the Papacy reformed its link with England.

However there were also some occasions when the relations between the Conqueror and the Papacy were strained. To secure further ties between the Papacy and William, the Pope in 1080 asked for fealty from the England and the continuation of Peter’s Pence. However William response, that he will not pay fealty to Rome, shows the limits of papal authority. Though William agrees to pay the Peter’s Pence, England is being brought into a conflict between two Popes in Europe; the debate between the Pope and the anti-Pope had begun with the pope in Rome calling for English support. Both William and Lanfranc stay neutral and refuse to get involved with William ordering that no pope should be recognised and that no papal letters should be received in England.

With the papal crisis continuing in Europe, papal influence in England was stalled and the Norman kings were able to regain some of their lost influence over the church. This end the part that the papacy plays in the reign of William the Conqueror and during the reigns of his sons, the papacy and the kings of England do clash again. I hope this blog update has given you an insight into the Post-Conquest English church and how the Papacy used its influence to reform the religious structure.  

Sources:

G, Slocombe., William the Conqueror (1959)

E, Van-Houts and  C, Harper-Bill, (ed.) A companion to the Anglo-Norman world (2003)

B, Golding., Conquest and Colonisation, the Normans in Britain: 1066-1100 (1994)

‘The greatest mistake America made was allowing women to vote’:

Now there is a title for my blog this month. The greatest mistake that America had ever made was allow women the right to vote, call me crazy but for those of us who actually believe in the ideals of equality, freedom, and the right to express ourselves and our opinions politically, isn’t this going a bit far. Ok so that’s an understatement as to how I felt about this article when I read it, and is actually the politest way I could think to describe the shock and anger I felt upon reading it, by the way yes I am a women and as my friends well know one with feminist tendencies and opinions so to me, this was a bit of a kick in the teeth. However I respect the right of Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to his opinion and have provided a link to the article below for those of you who wish to read the article in full. Yet I hope that he also respectfully accepts my right to disagree with him. So this blog shall explore the complex relationship that women have with politics and voting, and asking the question why, as we come in England (6 years to go) to the centenary of women having the right to vote, do such out dated views, that we should not have the right to vote, still exist.

In the article Rev. Peterson states that women are ‘leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power. Whilst I disagree with Rev. Peterson’s idea that the way in which women vote is bringing a form of ‘political evil’, to the United States, or at least this is how it appears to him, as a Republican. However it must be stated that perhaps his rather extremist view is as a result of the suggestion that in the last presidential election (2008), that more women voted for Obama and the Democrat party , his political and the party that is attempting to bring a considerable amount of change to America, which is described by some, particularly of a Republican persuasion, as attempts to bring a kind of socialism into America. For instance through the introduction of the idea of same-sex marriages; the introduction of health care reforms. As a result the suggestion by Rev. Peterson, the ‘wickedness’ that has been brought in by women voting democrat, entail the more left leaning ideas that are changing America. Which as a Republican, a group who can be typically identified as deeply Christian and extremely conservative, he would not appreciate these changes. However there is a wider comment that can be made as a result of Rev. Peterson’s suggestions, that the attitudes to women and power (in this case political, yet there are other examples) is something that hasn’t changed. Since the beginning of time it can be argued that whenever women had some form of power they were often mocked or criticized for it. In sticking with the political element to this blog post I shall stick to women who have actively participated within politics or had an impact upon them within the 21st and 20th century. However my previous statement remains women who have power have been stereotypically seen as a bad thing or something that cannot be trusted to act rationally. Once again I must state that these suggestions are my own opinions, please feel free to disagree with me and post your own comments on this subject.

As an English woman a prime example of this statement can be found in the treatment of Britain’s first and only (so far) woman Prime Minister Margret Thatcher. Now I can hear you start your tirades of how she took away milk and destroyed the miners or how she did great in the Falkland’s whichever camp you’re in, however I ask you to put these feelings aside for a moment and consider whether the fact that she was a women contributed to people’s opinions of her, in a negative manner. For instance she was known as the Iron Lady, a title given to her as a result of her determination and stubbornness with her politics and politicians, whilst this can be seen as a title of strength it can also be seen negatively as the iron lady can also conjure up images of a harsh woman, to an extent unwomanly. As it is already known Thatcher underwent voice coaching and a change of appearance before becoming leader of the conservative party, in order, it can be suggested to become more authoritative a stereotypically manly trait which is needed for any leader. However the fact that Thatcher has to adopt such traits, authoritative, stubbornness, and determination in order to succeed in British politics demonstrates how women to an extent, have to change in order to succeed in politics, and sometimes get ridiculed as unwomanly as a result. Another more recent example of the way in which women who have political power are often criticized, rightly or wrongly is the characterization of Sarah Palin as the “pitbull with lipstick” and other such stereotypes that have been attached to her. Therefore, the wider point that women who have/ gain political power is still something that is seen in an interesting manner, whilst were not burning them on the stake as witches, it can be suggested that attitudes to women being in power still haven’t changed, as women who attempt have power and attempt to create change can be criticized for it. With the negative stereotyping of women who have political power it is perhaps unsurprising that there have been comparatively less great women political figures (when compared to the amount of inspiring male counterparts) and that even today there are still very few women within the political cabinet of the U.K. that can be argued as actually having a degree of influence or the ability to change laws. Whilst I’m not suggesting that the cabinet or any political body is forced to have women with the opportunity to lead and change the status quo, I think that the relationship between women and politics remains complex and this is something that hasn’t changed since women having won the right to political suffrage. The remarks of Shirley Chisholm (a Congresswoman, for New York’s 12th Congressional District from 1969 to 1983) who said that during her New York legislative career, she had faced much more discrimination because she was a woman than because she was black perhaps remain surprisingly more relevant today than we care to believe in our modern society.

Alternatively it must be recognized that within the last 10-20 years there has been a noticeable change in the treatment of women involved within politics, for instance in America and internationally Michelle Obama is considered a very powerful and influential, within her own right as well as a result of being the first lady. Similarly Hillary Clinton, who ran in the same election as Sarah Palin can be suggested as having less negative publicity for being a politically minded women.

Thus demonstrating that whilst the public’s relationship with women in politics is no doubt complex, it is also changing. For instance in 2009 there America had the opportunity to elect its first ever women president. With this in mind the only thing left for me is to reiterate my opinion that women having the right is far from being the worst thing that has ever happened in history. It is perhaps instead a result of the negative publicity that often surrounds female politicians and women voters that has led to that particular conclusion. Yet the times are changing and there may soon be a time when women presidents and prime ministers, become the norm as it is often the case in Scandinavian countries. Who knows?

Sophie

Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141530/Fox-News-guest-Rev-Jesse-Lee-Peterson-says-women-shouldnt-allowed-vote.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lee_Peterson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7709852.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Interview with Professor Emerita Barbara Yorke, part 4(Final part)

Do you think a historical truth exists? –It’s all sort of multi layered, isn’t it, cause obviously something did happen, it’s hard to, though some people might try to, argue away something like the Second World War, and you can see a series of events that led up to it, but when you then begin to ask why did that happen, that is obviously more difficult. I think that there is something that really has happened, but trying to understand everything is more difficult. For with accidents or something and five witnesses come forward, then they all have slightly different stories depending on their idea of what happened and where they were standing at the time, or their preconceptions if they see a female driver, then men might say; it must be the women driving’s fault, she was hesitating, etc., etc., and thereby people will make those sort of assumptions and built them into how they have interpreted what’s going on, and so than you have to try and reconstruct what have happened, and that is sort of what historians are doing in a way. They are laying out the facts they can be sure of, and then taking different views and interpretations sometimes people at the time, sometimes later, trying to understand why they happened, and from that point of view people contemporaries might think they understand what is going on, but they don’t always, for there are things like baggage they bring with them which influence their understanding of it.  Or that they haven’t gotten the bigger picture, as they think they might, so they can’t see the outcomes like people later can do. So in that sense Historical is something that needs to be tested, undoubtedly something have happened, and you can’t deny that.

If you had a time machine and you could take one trip, either for research or for fun, where would you go, and why? –It would be absolutely fascinating to go somewhere like 8^th century Britain, and do a quick tour around and see if its anything like what one think it would be, and to see people using the items doing things, and see what life was like, and see different monasteries and houses and things like that, I mean that would be absolutely fascinating to do, to see; have we got it right? Or are there all sorts of aspects of life that just haven’t been recorded which we can’t see, so there is all sorts of things like that which would have been wonderful to see,  and King Alfred himself is he an big impressive warrior or just a weedy scholar type, you know is he anything like what one think, and if it is just this small band of people who have produced this picture of Alfred as this scholarly king, when he in the fact only are rolling around on the sofas with his men, drinking, hunting and enjoying himself and saying;’ it would be quite useful if you did this job for me on my personality’, and maybe he turns out in the lines of a traditional Anglo-Saxon kings, just to see what he was really like.

If you could find the one object, text or anything, that you know have existed, or wish that could exist, what would it be? – well, something like a major text from Mercia would be nice, written from a Mercian perspective like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or Bede’s Ecclesiastical History just based in Mercia, or something from that area that would open things up. It is difficult with one object, really, maybe another History, written on the same things as Bede but just from a Mercian perspective, or a Life of Offa the Great or something like that, to put along Alfred’s text, which would be extremely interesting.

We would like to thank Barbara Yorke for taking the time to this interview, and we hope that you, our reader, like us in the blog group have gotten to know this distinguished historian better.

Interview with Professor Emirita Barbara Yorke, part 3

Do you personally trust Asser or Bede’s works? – Well you can’t view them as you would modern people, you can’t expect them to be modern historians, and you need to think what their interests are and that is the interesting thing to try to get into the mind of someone else. Bede has a huge mind, so he is quite difficult to get into, and it’s a very theological mind, that’s what he has been trained as, so his way of looking at things is naturally dictated by that, so, truth or trust is a difficult thing to say, but any writer is revealing things about themselves and the times they are living in just by writing. So they are saying things on one level, but behind that are assumptions and trying to get what’s behind what they say is almost more interesting than what they are revealing. So I think if one wants to treat them as a modern history text book that would be wrong, they are not writing in that sort of way.

Do you think history has a future? – oh, it has to, I mean the more things that happen the more history is being created, so it is never going to go away.

I mean as in the discipline, considering the debates that have been with the postmodern attacks etc.  – I think it has, I think it’s too important to ignore, particularly in Europe where history is so deeply rooted, and it is all around us, and it is tied in with everyone’s national identity, it I also tied into the businesses of attractions and tourism so I think it is firmly bedded in the economy. Well I do think it if frightening the way it has been cut back in schools and that people haven’t got that idea of the depth of history that is all around us, for having that knowledge adds hugely to traveling around the country and seeing new places.  I think there is a huge interest out there, especially if you go to lectures in local societies or adult learners, there is a huge interest, for it is sometimes something people grow into, even though they might not have the interest at an earlier age, they can acquire it later in life.

What is your best advice to a student of either history or archaeology who struggles with their work and motivation? – that’s a really difficult question, or I am not very good at motivation, for most people need to able to motivate themselves, it is the most difficult thing to do as a teacher to try and motivate others, and it is one of the most frustrating things as a teacher is that you can’t get people to see what is interesting and to get them going and if one knew how to do it, one would be a huge success. I think one has to accept that you are not going to like everything all the time, particularly as an undergraduate, and concentrate on things you really do like, and always choose courses because they are interesting, not because they are at the best time, or something like that. That can sometimes be a problem, because I am only going to do something that falls between the mid-day period on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, or something like that, cause then you might find yourself doing something you don’t like, and you will not be so well motivated if you do that. It is something that is hard, which often means that if you do get on top of it, you have done a real achievement, and a real leap forward, so it might often be a good sign if some things are hard. So you have to have ambitions, but also leave yourself enough time to do essays, so you can say ‘I am confused now’, and put it to the side, and sleep on it, and then when you wake up the next morning it is all much clearer, that is at least how it works with me and writing, that things sort themselves over night, so you need to allow a certain amount of time to do it. And I suppose to motivate themselves they got to have their bigger goals in mind, though it might be a bit of a struggle, but if you don’t do this you might not get such a good degree, and but if you do, you can get a better degree and a much bigger choice of things you can do in life. And so, whereas the rest of your life doesn’t seem so important when you are young, and that it is such a long way off, and you might by the time you are thirty think why bother, but by the time you are forty you are having a rather different view, and think; ‘Oh my God, I wish I knew, what I know now, and that I would have worked harder when I was twenty so that I wouldn’t be doing this boring job now, but that I could have followed my desire to go on to be a dot, dot, dot, whatever it is you want to do’. So trying to keep that bigger picture in mind and keep yourself at things, even if it is something you are not so interested in, it is usually not wasted in the long run, and sometimes you might come back and find that it is much more interesting later on, even though you didn’t see the point of it earlier. Sometimes you might find that you are working in that particularly area for some reason and it becomes a lot more interesting. It is the same with all knowledge; you have to have the base before you can go on to the more interesting stuff.  If you don’t know how historiography works then you’ll never have that to build upon, and become more interesting.

How has history shaped your life? Or where has it taken you, i.e. where in the world? – Where in the world? Well it certainly has taken me to places which have been good, like you get to go to conferences and things like that, so… that’s good it allows you to travel to places you didn’t think of traveling to, not that I have travelled that much, but I have in Europe and North America,  but not really outside there. Ehmmm, where it have taken me as a person? Yeah… well I suppose the fact of having a bit of expertise in a particular area allows you to go to a conference and someone can come up to you and say that: ‘Thank you so much for your book, it got me interested in that subject’. It is a really nice thing for somebody to say to you, and you think perhaps you have done a little bit of good. It is quite nice to think that you have had an impact in other people’s lives; it is a nice thing to do.

Here ends part III of the interview, but part IV will follow shortly; in part IV which also is the final part Professor Yorke is sharing her thoughts on a Historical truth, and what she would do if she had a time machine.

Interview with Professor Emerita Barbara Yorke, Part 2

You have recently been on television in a programme about the importance of books and the royal line in Anglo-Saxon England. How did you find the programme both as a historian and as a viewer? – I haven’t seen it, I have seen the second one, but not the first one cause I was away at the time, but we have recorded it, I did sneak a look at some of it on Iplayer where I could have it very, very small where I didn’t have to see myself blown up just to check that it was alright. The second programme I thought worked very well, Janina is a presenter who used to do some teaching here at the University, she is an art historian and I think she did it very well. The one I saw last time had some really stunning manuscripts, so I am looking forward to going to the exhibition, so yeah, I am all in favour of that sort of programmes that got sort of a high production value, and it makes what can see as a dreaded subject quite accessible to people, so I think people should contribute to things like this. Else we risk history becoming too narrow and specialized, so we need to get it out there and get people interested, and demanding that their children are taught history and that sort of thing.

What do you think has been the greatest challenge you have faced throughout your career in history and archaeology? – that is one of the more difficult questions, but if you are doing both teaching and research that is quite challenging, because you get pulled in different directions, and you get one load of things to do in respect to teaching and another you are also expected to publish. And keeping up with both areas are quite difficult, since you might be teaching a much broader area than your research, so there is a huge amount being produced, so when I first started here, I was teaching archaeology as well, and there wasn’t much published on Anglo-Saxon archaeology, so it was relatively easy to cover it when you had the background in it, but as the years has gone by there have been so much work in Anglo Saxon Archaeology I could not possibly keep up with that,  and all the historical side I am covering as well, so I did drop some things, which now other lectures are teaching, which made things a bit easier, there are quite a lot of demands upon you when you are working in a university, you have to be a bit firm with yourself not to try to meet all those demands, and say you are going to stop now and say you are not going to do that anymore. Though it is hard to know when to stop, do you come into University from 9 to 5 and that’s it? or? You know you have to go home eventually; I have always tried not to work on the weekend and so on.

To what extent would you say that for the period in which you have specialised in, one needs to understand both archaeology and history to be able to create a fuller picture of the past? – Obviously it is needed, but its quit difficult to be an expert in both of them, so I get a bit worried when I read archaeology things and they do not include or fit in with the written evidence, and you get people working on the 5^th and 6^th century and extrapolating what the social structure might have been like without it bearing any resemblance to the earliest law codes. And I think that is a bit worrying, I think they’ve got to tie up, so you want to do that. And yes you can specialise on an area or another, but if you want to get the whole picture then you have to look upon both, well you will never get the whole picture for a period like that, but you can make a better text if you look at everything that is available. It is difficult to do, for they don’t always lead in the same direction, but that’s what is interesting and stimulating about it.

Would you say that king Alfred really was ‘the great’? – I think he was an quite exceptional person, you know unusual for his time, not afraid to study books which people often would laugh at, and being the boy who only wanted to study not to fight. However, on the other hand he was that sort of fighter as well, and he went out there and he lead the army, and it is very unusual to get someone who does that, but he is a great self-publicist as well, one of the quotes about him is; ‘we know that Alfred is great because he tells us so’.  So there is a bit of that with him, so I think he often gets the credit for things that perhaps should be shared out among a greater range of Anglo Saxon kings, such as his son and brothers.  In a way since he is such a well-known name it sort of snowballs from that, and there are many reasons why his reputation have always been higher than other Anglo Saxon kings. But after all he did choose a different life than what was expected of him, he moves out of the box in a way, for he could have chosen an easy life lying on the sofa taking it easy, but he is rather out there and wanted to find out more and he wanted to study so that’s very stimulating about him, when you look and see all the things that happened in his reign, such as laying the foundations of the Old English state, but it is very hard to see a lot of innovation in his reign. He’s got big ideas, but not always the means to put them into practice.

Part II of the interview ends here, but part III and IV will soon follow, in part III we are will hear what Barbara think of Asser and Bede, and how students might keep their motivation up.