Blog Archives

Seven Faces of Henry VIII

28/6/2015

Henry VIII was born on the 28th June 1491 at Greenwich Palace, the second son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

Henry's older brother Arthur died in 1502 which left Henry as heir to the throne. On the death of his father on the 22nd of April 1509, Henry became king Henry VIII. Henry was seen as a clever and active young man, he spoke three languages fluently, he was an excellent sportsman too. He played tennis, he wrestled, he liked archery and bowling. Henry also enjoyed hunting, jousting and hawking. Henry, of course is famous for his dealings with women, there were six wives and assorted mistresses who accompanied him through life.

This kings story has kept us enthralled for many years, his exploits viewed on the big screen and on television many many times. Lets have a look at who has played him over the years.

1613 Unknown actor in Shakespeare's Henry VIII

Henry VIII, Shakespeare's play, was first performed at the Globe. It was this play that literally brought the house down. A cannon shot, that formed part of the scene in the home of Cardinal Wolsey ignited the thatched roof of London's Theatre and the building burnt to the ground.

1933 Charles Laughton in The Private Life of Henry VIII

Charles Laughton, in the film The Private Life of Henry VIII, portrays Henry as a pathetic and vain man. The film itself has been described as a
"Pork Gorging, Head Chopping, Liberty-Taking Romp"

You will know that this is a true statement if you have ever watched the famous banqueting scene. Henry's weight gain is well documented, but this film goes out of its way to give us the wrong impression of Henry. We are shown a sleazy and greedy king, chomping his way though numerous chicken legs and then discarding them over his shoulder. There is some truths here though, we do know that Henry's weight had gradually increased despite his early athleticism, he was a tall man, over six foot with a waist of 39 inches but by the time he had reached his fifties his waist had increased to 52 inches.

Laugton's Henry is hideous, raucous, and totally unlikable.

1966 Robert Shaw in A Man for all Seasons

In the 1966 film A Man for all Seasons, Henry VIII was played by Robert Shaw. Shaw's Henry was, for me, the most frightening.
One minute he is very personable with a loud hearty laugh, the next he is a menacing tyrant. Shaw's Henry is not a bully, but he is clever, his presence is very threatening in the scene in the garden of Thomas More's home. Henry wants to know if More has changed his mind regarding Anne Boleyn, but we know that More could not and would not be swayed, no matter how frightened he was of him, no matter the consequences.

Both Charles Laughton and Robert Shaw show Henry VIII as childlike, where Laughton's Henry is petulant, Shaw's Henry is enthusiastic and spoilt. Robert Shaw was nominated for best actor at the Oscars for this film but it went, quite rightly, to Paul Scofield, for his portrayal of Thomas More, who was the Man for all Seasons.

1969 Richard Burton in Anne of a Thousand Days

Richard Burton has to be the Henry you could not help but fall in love with if you were a lady of his court, he is smoldering and rather sexy. I thought he played Henry rather well considering he thought the film was

"mediocre rubbish"

Where the two previous films focus on Henry as greedy and vain, Anne of a Thousand Days is about possession and love. Burton's Henry is strong and self assured and really wants Anne, but later a stubborn streak causes Henry to be dispassionate on her 'betrayal." Richard Burton's Henry would not write the lines

"wishing myself specially and evening in my sweetheart's arms who pretty dukkys I trust shortly to kiss"

his Henry is far more manly than that. Richard Burton as Henry VIII is smoldering and passionate and as far away from the real Henry VIII as I think you could get.

1971 Sid James in Carry On Henry

If Richard Burton's portrayal of Henry VIII in Anne of a Thousand days leaves you a hot under the collar then Sid James's portrayal has quite the opposite effect. So Henry VIII was fond of the chase and this is obvious in all the films but it is only in Carry On Henry that you see him as a seedy character. Sid James's Henry is certainly that.

This film is played for laughs and shouldn't really be compared to the others. To be fair to James he was working in the confines of the Carry On ethos, all slapstick and "ooh err missus" and he did write in his biography

"I was really having a go at him"

Nevertheless, not one of the best Henry VIII's around I must say.

1972 Keith Michell in Henry VIII and his Six Wives

Keith Michell portrayed Henry VIII in the 1972 television series Henry VIII and his Six wives. In the forerunner of the mini series, thirty five years before we were given The Tudors, we are able to look at Henry's life in full and this is achieved as the king
lies dying, and he looks back over his life. I watched this quite recently and although it doesn't pack a punch it felt real. Michell's young Henry appears exposed at times and is surrounded by elder statesmen and this does make you think, if only for a little while, that maybe he is not all to blame for the way he turned out.

2007 Jonathan Rhys Meyers in The Tudors

Well! What can you say about Jonathan Rhys Meyers Henry? Many loved his Henry VIII most called him sexy and I cannot complain too much about this because I have just said the same thing about Richard Burton. But Meyer's just didn't manage to portray the complex character of Henry VIII as Burton did. To be fair to Meyers, times have changed and what is accepted in film and on television today was a no go area in the 1960's and Burton did not have to resort to bump and grind to get the point across that Henry was a virile and passionate man.

Meyers played Henry's larger than life character very well, but take away the all the glitter and the gratuitous rumpy pumpy and you still don't have the real Henry VIII.

2015 Damian Lewis in Wolf Hall

It was nearly fifty years ago when Robert Shaw played Henry VIII to Paul Scofield's Thomas More, this year Damian Lewis had to play Henry VIII to Mark Rylance's Thomas Cromwell and just like Shaw, Lewis did a terrific job.

Our new Henry was a quiet Henry, a Henry that we have not seen portrayed in this way before. There was no sign of Laughton's Henry who stuffed himself silly, no sign of the menacing tyrant of Shaw's character. None of the buffoonery that was Sid James's character. There was not even the seductiveness of Richard Burton's Henry or the vigor of Meyers character.

So what about this new Henry?

Damian Lewis portrays a grounded Henry VIII, a considered Henry, an intense Henry. In fact, it was hard to see the Henry VIII we have come to know at all in Lewis's performance. Saying that, I thought that this Henry was cunning and manipulative letting everyone think they were all in charge when in fact they were not at all!

So there you have it, seven attempts at presenting King Henry VIII to us. Each portrayal showed us something of the sixteenth century kings character, but are we any nearer knowing the real Henry? Probably not, but as a whole I think the actors are not far wrong.

8 Comments

12th Century Cornwall: Penhallam Manor and the Origins of the Cardinham Family

24/6/2015

1 Comment

Penhallam Manor in the Country of Cornwall

What remains of the once impressive Penhallam Manor can be found in the North of Cornwall not too far from Cornwall’s boarder with Devon and a few miles north of the villages of Weeks St Mary’s and Jacobstow. Its walls, which are still clearly visible, are at ground level and covered in grass. On a visit last year I found the surrounding thick woodland in full bloom, making it very easy for me to visualise how the manor once had been. The remains of the manors moat is still visible, albeit dried and the only safe access is at the designated entrance which was, in fact, the drawbridge.

Once within the manor walls we find each room is clearly seen and marked, having some knowledge of how a medieval manor was built and run that will make all the difference, because it really appears as a lot of square, grass covered clumps. Now cared for by English Heritage the site is well maintained but is off the beaten track and a good twenty minute walk is needed to get there.

The Manor, excavated in 1968 and again in 1973, was built of stone and constructed on four sides of a courtyard and probably built between the 12th and 13th centuries on the site of its original Norman structure. This original building, the Camera, was a suite of rooms or a single room was used by family members or an important guest. This structure was built between 1180 and 1200 with additions to the buildings were added by 1224. The remains we see today were built when the last male owner of the house inherited it between 1224 and 1236. The final addition appeared around 1300. The house at its completion contained a camera, hall, service rooms, chapel, lodgings and a gatehouse. It was abandoned by the 14th century its stones taken from the site and probably used in constructions elsewhere. This manor house was the principle residence of the Cardinham family whose progenitor held this land under the king soon after the conquest of England, they were also one of the largest owners of land in the county of Cornwall. Penhallam, for a brief time, was where the power lay.

My initial interest was not with Penhallam itself but with another pre conquest manor known as Hele which, along with Penhallam and Poulza made up what is now the aforementioned Parish of Jacobstow. Before the conquest of England the land of Hele was owned by Colo who also held the manors of Week St Mary’s. Both Hele and Week St Mary’s were held by my direct ancestors from the middle of the 13th century. My ancestors marriage between the female heir of Weeks St Marys and male heir of Hele links my family with that of the manor of Penhallam, although not linked by blood my ancestors would have been directly involved with the family that held the manor. Unlike Penhallam, the home of my ancient family at Week St Mary’s and Hele was probably a timber structure of which there are no remains, this and their land were lost simply due to the lack of male heir.

At the time of Edward the Confessor the people of Cornwall lived a more or less quite life in small settlements and their living earned from land and the sea, they had little or no knowledge of what was going on in the rest of the county let alone England itself. By 1068 the town of Exeter was in the hands of the Conqueror, the people of that city had not given up without a fight and neither had the inhabitants of Cornwall but by at least 1072 William had total control of England and Cornwall. William held a number of manors in Cornwall himself such as the Manor of Brannel in the south of the county which incidentally becomes the property of the descendants of my family at Week St Mary’s by early in the 13th century. On the whole most of Cornwall was held by the conquerors half brother, Robert, Count of Mortain. Under Mortain in the north of Cornwall there were three other powerful men. Turstin the second most powerful man under Mortain who was Sheriff of Cornwall, Richard Fitz Turold, who was his steward, and Reginald de Vallatort.

It is Richard fitz Turold who we are interested in in connection with Penhallam. It is probable that fitz Turolds father was in Mortains entourage and was said to have been in command of the troops that secured Cornwall and was for this reason he was rewarded with Penhallam. It is probable that he built the foundations and moat which circled the later building. By 1087 Richard Fitz Turold succeeded his father at Penhallam still holding it under the family of Mortain. Due to the exploits of Mortains son and the loss of his the families lands Richard Fitz Turold was given Penhallam which he held directly from the king thus setting the family on the road to being one of the most powerful family in Cornwall.

Richard Fitz Turold son William received from his father the manor of Penhallam along with twenty seven other manors that made up the great Honour of Cardinham. Richard’s greatest achievement was the amassing of power and lands and William’s was getting his family through the doors into the royal court, albeit by the back door. William married his daughter to Reginald, Earl of Cornwall who was son of Henry I and his mistress Sibyl Corbett. By 1166 the manor had passed to Robert fitz William who held a vast amount of land in his own right, the manor of Bodardle and parts of the manor of Restomal all of which were the lands of the above named Tursin whose family had become extinct on the death of Walter Hay, who was Roberts brother in law. On his death Robert held these lands through that of his wife. It is more than likely that Robert built the stone keep at Restormal Castle.

Roberts son, also Robert was the first to use the name of Cardinham which was how the family were later known. Probably Robert built most of the house but it was his son Andrew de Cardinham who built the hall and western parts of the house. Andrew is named in a charter to the priory of St Michael’s Mount which was dated c 1223. Andrew had no sons to carry on the line of his ancestor Turold who conquered Cornwall for his Norman lords and when his nephew died so did the male line of Cardinham. Andrew did leave a daughter, Isolde. She had married into the de Tracy family but by him had no children. She later married William de Ferrers and had two sons. On the death of Andrew de Cardinham, Isolde became a wealthy heiress and seems that she held her lands and had control of them herself, whether this was due to her being widowed for the second time or that she was in fact an independent and strong willed woman I don't know. Eventually the lands that had been in her family for nearly two hundred years passed into the Champernowne family. The exact relationship of the Champernowne family to the Cardinhams is not known but there would have been some family connection, there may have been some family ‘in fighting’ among the Cardinhams that caused Isolde to gift the land else where but even so it is unlikely that the lands of Isoldes ancestors would have passed out of the family into the hands of complete strangers. After Isoldes death and the transference of Penhallam to the Champernowne it is not known who exactly lived there. The Champernownes were tenants in chief directly under the king and who held much land in Devon so it would be more than likely that Penhallam was held by a Cornish family under them. It is known that the manor was held by the Beaupre family for a considerable time and they may have lived there but by mid 14th century the Cardinhams, Champernownes and Beaupres were extinct their blood intermingled with that of the wealthy land owning Cornishmen who once were their vassals.

And of Penhallam, that too as we have seen is gone, it is now a protected and cared for ruin, a shell of what it once was. Even today, as mentioned in the first chapter, its remains are a good distance form ‘civilisation’ so its is fair to say that this may have been the reason that it fell into decay.

1 Comment

Dangerous Talk Costs Lives - The Last Days of Anne Boleyn

23/6/2015

0 Comments

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb in her blog The Last Days of Anne Boleyn states

"the story of Anne Boleyn's downfall inspires extraordinarily passionate, opinionated disagreement. There's just the right amount of evidence to keep us guessing, enough to lead to great speculation and several almost sustainable theories, but ultimately not enough to nail any one entirely."

Eventually, by sifting through all the evidence a number of theories come to the forefront, these are:

Anne was guilty.
Thomas Cromwell had it in for her.
Henry wanted to get rid of Anne.

Talk and idle gossip within the court was Anne's undoing and as Dr Lipscomb states:

"Dangerous talk cost lives and it was what Anne said – rather than what she did – that made her appear,
in Henry's eyes, guilty."

In my opinion, it was a mixture of the last two theories.

Many people believe that it was Jane Boleyn who was to blame for initiating Anne’s downfall, but it has never been proved that she set the wheels in motion regarding Anne's downfall, but Jane has been called a “pathological meddler” I'm leaning towards the fact that it was probably true, events later in Henry's reign bear witness to that.

We know that Jane encouraged the relationship between Catherine Howard and Thomas Culpepper. Catherine wrote in a letter to him “praying you that you will come when my Lady Rochford is here” If Jane had anything to do with Anne’s downfall she must have realised that she was lucky to escape in 1536, and if she didn’t then she doesn't seem to have learnt anything from the whole affair. Jane must have known what would happen if Henry found out that she was involved with Catherine and Culpepper and when the affair was out in the open each woman blamed the other. With regard to Anne, maybe Jane had it in for Anne and didn’t need much encouragement to tell tales, maybe she was just repeating gossip, or maybe she was just saving her own skin. Who knows, but she walked right into the Culpepper affair with her eyes open.

If it was not Jane Boleyn, then who was it?

Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester is also considered to be a main source of gossip regarding tales of Anne's misconduct. One has Elizabeth being reprimanded by her brother for her behaviour to which she replied that she was

“no worse than the queen”

Another is along the same lines, it was Elizabeth herself who reprimanded a lady in waiting for comparing her behaviour
to that of the queen. In another, Elizabeth suggests that her brother talk of Mark Smeaton and a lady in waiting about Anne's behaviour.

In the April or May of 1536, others were saying much the same. John Hussee, agent to Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle also stated:

“as to the queen’s accusers, my lady of Worcester is said to be the principal in raising charges”

In our time G W Bernard, a Professor of Early Modern History, writes

“there is strong evidence that it was the Countess of Worcester’s revelations that sparked the arrests and trials”

We will never know who said what to whom with regard to the betrayal of Anne Boleyn, but someone did put the wheels in motion and the intimate details of what was going on and what was said in Anne's bedchamber came from someone close to Anne. Who was it then who instigated such dangerous conversations and where does Cromwell fit in?

Predominantly, I feel it was Henry who wanted to be rid of Anne, he saw to it that someone got the ball rolling and that person
used the loose talk in court about Anne's 'behaviour' against her. I suppose you could argue though that someone had originally planted the seeds of doubt in Henry's mind about Ann and then left to see what would germinate, was this Thomas Cromwell?

Was Anne Boleyn guilty of adultery? I find it hard to believe, Anne would not have put her soul in danger of eternal damnation by lying. She is said to have said

"I swear, on the damnation of my soul, that I have never been unfaithful to my lord and husband, nor ever offended with my body against him."

Dangerous talk it seems does cost lives.

Incidentally, Elizabeth Browne was the granddaughter of my 16x great grandfather.

0 Comments

Caroline Louise von Schoenberg and the Burial of German Nobility

23/6/2015

5 Comments

The mummies seen here were members of the German nobility whose titles were inherited by their male line descendants. The surnames of nobles such as these, were preceded by the word Von meaning of and this leads me nicely into writing about the mummy of the poor woman on the far right of the image who has been restrained.

She is Caroline Louise von Schoenberg, she was born in March 1740 she died on the 17th April 1821.

The Schoenberg's were an important and widespread Saxon noble family whose ancestry can be traced back centuries. Members of this family occupied important state and administrative positions, including bishops and ministers.

Legend has it that Caroline was buried alive, the fact that she was tightly bound goes some way to suggesting that the legend was true. She is bound but not gagged. I wonder what would have prevented her from shouting out? Maybe she was drugged too.

The reason for the murder of this elderly lady, according to the same legend, is as you might imagine money. Her grasping children had already divided their mothers estate, disposing of her in this way, it has been suggested, prevented her banging on the coffin lid during the burial service and revealing her wretched offspring's guilty secret.

Poor Caroline! True or not there must be a reason why she was retained. The answer may be found in the mummification and burial rituals of German nobility. Burial documents, dated to the 18th century suggests

'the aforementioned corpse should not decay in the vaults below the church.'

Archaeologist have discovered that many of these vaults have cleverly designed ventilation systems between the tombs, this aided mummification as did lining the coffins with sawdust and straw. This may have been tradition but it was not compulsory, it seems that the preservation of the corpses in this way was a conscious decision and a matter of choice. Quite a few people chose to have personal objects buried with them.

Another reason could be to do with the new religion of Protestantism and Martin Luther's teachings on the afterlife, this corresponds with the deaths and burials of earlier mummies. Luther translated the bible into German which these nobles would have read

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been
destroyed, yet in my flesh, I will see God."

Maybe wealthy protestants chose this method of mummification out of fear that they might not rise to heaven if their mortal remains rotted away.

5 Comments

"There be Devils over the Tamar"

21/6/2015

0 Comments

Two lovely little Cornish Tales.

The two images below were taken on the Cornish side of the River Tamar at Cotehele in Cornwall, across the river is the County of Devon.

There is a lovely little traditional story associated with this beautiful river. The first time I heard it was as very little girl from my Cornish uncle, who adapted the tale to suit himself.

He used to say that the reason he never left Cornwall was because

"There be devils over the Tamar"

Actually the origins of this story can be found in Cornish folklore where is says the devil was on his way to Cornwall and only got as far as Torpoint where he noticed that across the river there were many pies being made, overcome with fear, he would never dare to cross the Tamar into Cornwall for fear of ending up baked in a pasty. This tale features in a Cornish folk song called Fish, Tin and Copper, a version of which can be found in Richard Carew's Survey of Cornwall in 1607.

Old Nick, as he was wont to do
Was wand'ring up and down
To see what mischief he could brew,
And made for Launceston-town.

For 'tis fish and tin and copper, boys,
And Tre and Pol and Pen,
And one and all we may rejoice
That we are Cornishmen.

Across the Tamar he had come,
Though you might think it strange,
And having left his Devon home
Tried Cornwall for a change.

Now when to Launceston he grew near,
A-skipping o'er the sod,
He spied a rustic cottage there
With windows all abroad.

And in the kitchen might be seen
A dame with knife in hand,
Who cut and slashed and chopped, I ween
To make a pasty grand.

"Good Mornin', Missus, what is that?"
"Of all sorts, is a daub.
'Tis beef and mutton, pork and fat,
Potatoes, leeks, and squab."

"A Cornish pasty, sure", says she,
"And if thou doesn't mind,
I soon shall start to cut up thee
And put ye in, you'll find!"
In fear he turned and straight did flee
Across the Tamar green
And since that day in Cornwall
He has never more been seen!

I am sure that this story is is true because if you look very very closely, among the rushes, you can see a little set of red horns!

Another interesting story, is about the Cornish/Devon cream tea.

Cream teas can be found up and down the length of England eagerly wolfed down by thousands of tourists during their summer holidays or on a day out in the country, but the bone of contention in the West Country is whether the jam should be placed before the cream.

Firstly, the way they do things in Devon is to serve the cream topped by the jam on a scone and in Cornwall its the jam topped by the cream served on a Cornish Split a traditional sweet bread roll where, thank goodness, there are no horrid currants.

Now, it has been noted that clotted cream is a delicacy that is made throughout the Middle East, Southern Europe and as far as India and Turkey. Well I don't care about that or the fact that its earliest historical roots are with the monks of Tavistock Abby (that's in Devon I have to point out) were munching their way through cream teas in the 11th century and even way before William the Conqueror was packing his bags!

Well, I'm not going to beat around the bush here because well, I am from Cornwall and therefore I say that its jam first then the cream, there's no doubt about that and even if I do appear to be childish I've just got to repeat what I've heard recently:

"The Devon stuffs a bit gritty and anyway we've got better cows" So there!!!

0 Comments

Elizabeth I at Tilbury

20/6/2015

1 Comment

On the 9th of August in 1588, Queen Elizabeth I gave her famous Tilbury speech.

youtu.be/T3Bq1h728X0

That year saw a great fleet of ships set sail from Spain for England. Known as the Spanish Armada they were a large invasion force, who under the Duke of Parma had every intention of overthrowing protestant England. A combination of things such as Sir Francis Drakes's fire ships and a turn in the weather saw a total disaster for the Spanish.

At Tilbury Elizabeth arrived wearing a silver breastplate and from her horse delivered one of the most famous speeches in history in front of her assembled troops, this speech has always been said to have been rousing and defiant and contains this one famous line

"I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too"

It is this one line that comes to mind when we think of Elizabeth and the Spanish Armada.

The Tilbury Speech

"My loving people, We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honor and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonor shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you on a word of a prince, they shall be duly paid. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people."

Elizabeth's words come down to us from a letter dated 1623. Accepted as being authentic, the document below was found
in a letter from Leonel Sharp to the Duke of Buckingham. In 1588, Sharp was chaplain to Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex and
claimed to have present when Elizabeth delivered her speech.

In his letter he wrote

"I remember in '88 waiting upon the Earl of Leicester at Tilbury camp, and in '89, going into Portugal with my noble master, the Earl of Essex, I learned somewhat fit to be imparted to your grace.The queen lying in the camp one night, guarded with her army, the old treasurer, Burleigh, came thither and delivered to the earl the examination of Don Pedro, who was taken and brought in by Sir Francis Drake, which examination the earl of Leicester delivered unto me to publish to the army in my next sermon. The sum of it was this.Don Pedro, being asked what was the intent of their coming, stoutly answered the lords: What, but to subdue your nation and root it out.Good, said the lords, and what meant you then to do with the catholics? He answered, We meant to send them (good men) directly unto heaven, as all that are heretics to hell. Yea, but, said the lords, what meant you to do with your whips of cord and wire? (Whereof they had great store in their ships.) What? said he, we meant to whip you heretics to death that hare assisted my master's rebels and done such dishonour to our catholic king and people. Yea, but what would you have done, said they, with their young children? They, said he, which were above seven years old should hare gone the way their fathers went, the rest should have lived, branded in the forehead with the letter L for Lutheran, to perpetual bondage.This, I take God to witness, I received of those great lords upon examination taken by the council, and by commandment delivered it to the army.The queen the next morning rode through all the squadrons of her army, as armed Pallas, attended by noble footmen, Leicester, Essex, and Norris, then lord marshall, and divers other great lords. Where she made an excellent oration to her army, which the next day after her departure, I was commanded to re-deliver to all the army together, to keep a public fast. Her words were these"

Sharp then goes on write the most famous version of the Tilbury speech.

There is another version of the speech dated to 1612 by William Leigh, a clergyman and royal tutor, who is now remembered
for his series of sermons 'Queene Elizabeth Paraleld' which is said to includes the first published written record of Elizabeth's speech.

"Come on now, my companions at arms, and fellow soldiers, in the field, now for the Lord, for your Queen, and for the Kingdom. For what are these proud Philistines, that they should revile the host of the living God? I have been your Prince in peace, so will I be in war; neither will I bid you go and fight, but come and let us fight the battle of the Lord. The enemy perhaps may challenge my sex for that I am a woman, so may I likewise charge their mould for that they are but men, whose breath is in their nostrils, and if God do not charge England with the sins of England, little do I fear their force… Si deus nobiscum quis contra nos? (If God is with us, who can be against us?)

To celebrate this great victory medals were struck, embossed on them the words Flavit Jehovah et Dissipati Sunt and Homo proponit ed Deus disponit. In other words, Jehovah blew with his wind and they were scattered and Man proposes and God disposes.

1 Comment

Battle of Stamford Bridge

20/6/2015

1 Comment

25th September 1066

The 25th of September is the anniversary of a fierce battle that was to play an important part in shaping our country, not Hastings, which was less than a month later, but the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the County of Yorkshire.

Five days before the battle, Harald Hardrada, King of Norway and his English ally Tostig Godwinson, who was angry because he had not been given the Earldom of Northumbria the previous year, sailed up the Ouse with over ten thousand men and lead his force to a victory against the Saxon army at Fulford.

Only four days after hearing of the invasion, Harold Godwinson marched the hundred and eighty miles to east Yorkshire and surprised the invaders at Stamford Bridge. Previous the the onset of the battle, Harold had tried to persuade his brother to return and fight for his cause, promising him the Earldom of Northumbria, but Tostig was not interested, as he felt sure that the invaders were in a strong position.

But Tostig was wrong, Hardrada's mighty army was separated by the River Derwent, the majority of his men were on the east side and a smaller group on the west, the same side of the Derwent as the English. Later the English advance party had attacked and defeated the smaller Viking army and those who were left began to flee across the bridge. According to legend, when Harold's army did arrive they were confronted by a large axe wielding viking who held the English army at bay single handedly, cutting down over forty men with a couple of swipes his axe.

The English retaliated with their 'hero of the day' a lone soldier in a boat, who with one thrust of his trusty spear wounded the Norseman enough to let the English pass. Eventually, the defending English army had succeeded in defeating Hardrada's men. Hardrada himself was killed by a arrow in his windpipe and Tostig cut down with a sword. The kings force followed and killed most of the fleeing army, some men drowning in the river but many cut down as they ran.

It is said the the areas on which they fell was still white with bleached bones fifty years after the battle.

William the Conqueror landed at Hastings on the 14th of the following month with over seven thousand men, King Harold arrived with his force of up to thirteen thousand men, many of them weary from the battle and all of them weary from the march south.

A question then? If King Harold had not fought the Scandinavians at Fulford and Stamford Bridge and then not had to march his army over two hundred miles south would he have succeeded at Hastings?

1 Comment

The Cornish Rebellion

17/6/2015

1 Comment

In the first twelve years of his reign, Henry VII had successfully put down a number of major threats. They had all come from the Yorkist opposition, the de la Poles the sons of Elizabeth of York, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, pretenders to the throne.

In the June of 1497, the rumblings of a new threat to Henry's reign could be heard in the most western part of England that was not of a dynastic nature, it was a tax riot that turned into full scale rebellion. When Henry imposed yet another subsidy on the people to finance his war against the Scots, there was outrage in the county, traditionally it was the northern counties that bore the brunt of this taxation.

Poverty among the tin workers and labourers of Cornwall was rife, Michael Joseph An Gof, a blacksmith from the Cornish village of St Keverne was the first to rouse his village to rebellion and Thomas Flamank, a lawyer of Bodmin whose father Sir Richard Flamank was Cornwall's royal tax collector, were inciting rebellion in Bodmin urging the people to march and take their grievances to the King. They began to march peacefully to London, picking up supporters on the way. Thomas Flamank spoke at public meetings against the imposition of this tax. He compiled a “Declaration of Grievance" listing the Cornish complaints about English rule. The Cornish became a disciplined army of around 15,000 men, effectively led by Gof and Flamank.

These 'rebels' hoped to boost their numbers with men from Kent, but no support was forthcoming forcing the rebels to backtrack and head back towards London. When they arrived at Deptford Bridge they were confronted by archers protecting an important crossing point over the River Ravensbourne at Deptford.

It was on the 17th June that men of Cornwall faced the King's forces at Blackheath.

Just outside London, Michael Joseph An Gof, Thomas Flamank and their followers were forced into battle against the King’s army in the Battle of Deptford Bridge. The armies of Henry VII stormed the bridge at dawn the following day, the bridge was taken leaving between 200 and 2000 men dead.

Gof and Flamank, two brave Cornish leaders were hanged, drawn and quartered ten days later on the 27th and their heads displayed on London Bridge, although they were offered a degree of leniency as the drawing happened after they were dead.

No doubt both men hoped that their efforts were not in vain, and that

'They shall have a name perpetual and fame permanent and immortal'

Sadly this is not the case, both Gof and Flamank have been largely forgotten by history, over shadowed by men of equal bravery and events deemed to be greater than theirs. London, it seems, has made some effort to remember them and their plight, there is a plaque in their memory near the entrance to Greenwich Park.

1 Comment

Margaret Roper, Daughter of Thomas More

13/6/2015

0 Comments

Margaret Roper was born in October 1505 and grew up to be a highly intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable woman, this was due as much to her willingness to learn as it was her father educating her to a standard very rare for a girl of this time. She studied Latin and Greek and read astronomy, philosophy, theology, geometry, and arithmetic.

Affectionately called Meg by her father, she was the favourite of all his children, he carried letters from her when he travelled, proudly reading them out loud to his friends. She had married in 1521 and lived in her fathers house with her husband William Roper, whose interest in the teaching of Martin Luther, caused friction within the household. When Margaret's became pregnant, More said

'if it be a girl' then it should make up for the inferiority of her sex by her zeal to imitate her mother's virtue and learning’.

Twelve years later Thomas More was arrested for his refusal to support the King's annulment and take the Oath of Supremacy, being found guilty the date of his execution was set for the 6 July 1535. Margaret was allowed to visit him whilst he was in the tower, but no one really knows what was said between the two of them.
Margaret's husband, who wrote a biography of More ten years after the her death, never mentions any dialogue between father and daughter during his time in the Tower of London.

Margaret struggled with her feelings whilst More was incarcerated and is said to have 'pushed through the crowd and the guard, embraced her father, and asked his blessing.' whilst he walked to the scaffold.

Charles Landseer's 1839 painting depicts the story, that is often repeated, of how Margaret retrieved More's head from a spike on London Bridge and kept it until the day she died.

Margaret lasted only nine years without her father, dying in 1544.

Margaret Roper work such as The Four Last Thynges and her 1523 translations of Erasmus's works are lost, only a few of her letters remain.

0 Comments

Paul Delaroche: The Coffined Body of Charles I

12/6/2015

0 Comments

In this image, the French artist Paul Delaroche depicts Oliver Cromwell as he gazes at the coffined body of Charles I.

Delaroche's painting is dated to 1831, he had a 'straightforward technique that was firm, solid and smooth' he also had a wonderful talent for the dramatic. He was known to build little stage sets, including model figures to aid his work, he was also well known for his cloaked references to the French Revolution in which he often used English historical 'victims' such as Charles I, Lady Jane Grey and Thomas Wentworth to make a point.

So what does Delaroche mean when he depicts Cromwell holding open the coffin with one hand while he rests his other against the hilt of his sword. Maybe Cromwell's reflecting on his success as he stares at Charles's face and his sword is a physical reminder of how he and the English parliament brought down a king. What a perfect way of representing the revolution in France. With the troubles too recent to depict directly, Deloroche uses the regime change in England and the execution of Charles to explore the change of fortunes and the fall of the French monarchy.

It is a probably a myth that Cromwell raised the lid of Charles's coffin and stared at the kings decapitated body, but this fact did not deter him, Delaroche cared little about historical inaccuracies if he succeeded in getting his point across to the French public.

Another good example of this is his painting The Princes in the Tower, for which he drew his inspiration from the work of Shakespeare, a story he knew to have some truth. With this in mind he was able to make a comparison of the deaths of the two English boys to draw attention to the mysterious deaths of Louis XVII of France.

Delaroche denied any reference to the revolution in his works, but why would a French artist produce work based on the deaths of English victims of tyranny, if it was not to represent his own.

0 Comments

Penhallam Manor in the Country of Cornwall

Archives

Categories