Hampton Court

A thirty-minute train ride from London lands you at one of the most spectacular and historically rich palaces in Britain. Located on the banks of the Thames, Hampton Court Palace includes 60 acres of beautiful parkland in addition to the palace itself. According to the palace website, the history of Hampton Court Palace includes the following monarchs: Henry VIII (r 1509-47); Queen Mary I (r 1553-8); James I (r 1603-25); Charles I (r 1625-1649); Charles II (r 1630-85); William III and Mary I); and George II (r 1727-60). But these kings and queens are not the only people to have left their mark on the palace. Other notable people include Oliver Cromwell and Cardinal Wolsey.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the palace that I found was taking a tour through the different time periods and subsequent changes as seen through the development of the building itself. The building of Hampton Court Palace is billed as “the story of two palaces: a Tudor palace, magnificently developed by Cardinal Wolsey and later Henry VIII, alongside a baroque palace built by William III and Mary II” (Historic Royal Palaces). Of all the stories involved with Hampton Court, that of Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII is the most famous. And their story is what immediately drew me to the site.

The palace underwent major transformation during the time Cardinal Wolsey lived there, only to have the Cardinal lose his high-ranking position as a Cardinal, Archbishop of York as well as Lord Chancellor, but also his splendid house during the fallout with Henry VIII. Delderfield relates what happened: “It was Wolsey’s failure to arrange for Henry’s divorce from his first wife [Katherine of Aragon] that led to his dismissal in 1529 and summons the following year to London on a charge of high treason; he died on the journey” (64). Henry seized Wolsey’s magnificent house and turned it into a center of the Tudor court.

When it came to refurbishing his palace, no expense was too great in Henry’s eyes: “In just ten years Henry VIII spent more than £62,000 rebuilding and extending Hampton Court. This vast sum would be worth approximately £18 million today” (Historic Royal Palaces). By the time Henry was finished with it, Hampton Court Palace was elegant and sophisticated: “There were tennis courts, bowling alleys and pleasure gardens for recreation, a hunting park of more than 1,100 acres, kitchens covering 36,000 square feet, a fine chapel, a vast communal dining room (the Great Hall) and a multiple garderobe (or lavatory)—known as the Great House of Easement—which could sit 28 people at a time. Water flowed to the palace from Coombe Hill in Kingston, three miles away, through lead pipes” (Historic Royal Palaces). I especially enjoyed the atmospheric and hammerbeamed Great Hall; it didn’t take much to imagine a great table laden with food and surrounded by people and dogs, with the fire blazing in the middle as Henry looked on the scene proudly.

It is especially poignant to consider the situation surrounding the royalty living at the palace during Henry VIII’s time. At one time, the young prince and heir, Edward, lived with his two half-sisters who would both become queen someday, Elizabeth and Mary. Elizabeth’s mother was beheaded, Mary’s divorced, and Edward’s died. It’s the kind of situation that would definitely make for some awkward dinners. Nevertheless, the Tudors carried on, culminating in the Golden Age of the capable and intelligent Elizabeth I.


Hampton Court’s place in English history doesn’t end with the Tudors. The succeeding dynasty—the Stuarts—also made use of the palace, albeit in a somewhat diminished role when compared to its former centrality in English courtly life. In a rising tide of religious controversy and factious fighting, James I, a dedicated Calvinist except when it came to matters of church government, called for a conference to be held at Hampton Court between the bishops and the Puritans. Roberts relates that “the conference was by no means a total victory for the bishops, but the final outcome was, since James, once the conference ended, lost interest. He allowed the bishops . . . [to revise] the Book of Common Prayer in their own interest and secured passage trough Convocation of new canons, one of which required the clergy to subscribe to the royal supremacy, the Thirty-nine articles, and the revised Prayer Book” (331-32). This event is only one of many that illustrates the deep history and importance that the palace has played in British history.

---------------------
Works Cited

Delderfield, Eric R. Kings and Queens of England & Great Britain. London: Greenwich Editions, 1996.

Historic Royal Palaces. http://www.hrp.org.uk/. Accessed 5/6/2008 through http://www.hrp.org.uk/HamptonCourtPalace.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History Of England: Prehistory to 1714. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.

Globe Theater

In his play Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare obliquely references, through the character Ulysses, the theater that forever is linked to his name, “Take but degree away, untune that string,/ And hark what discord follows. Each thing meets/ In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters/ Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores,/ And make a sop of all this solid globe . . .” (TC 1.3.109-13). This statement, framed against the backdrop of the cosmos, sets the theater up in general, and the Globe in particular, as a microcosm in itself. As Levin puts it, the Globe was “an artistic replica of the whole human condition” (7). Although my visit to this microcosm was through a reproduction of the original theater, the Globe still remains a key element in understanding British cultural life. This journal will focus on the function and importance of the original Globe as Shakespeare would have known it in the Elizabethan era.


The building of the Globe begins with what was called simply the Theatre by the owner, James Burbage, which began in the spring in 1576. The area that Burbage settled on to build the Theatre in The Liberty of Halliwell (called ‘”Liberty” because it was an area licensed by the Mayor of London for theatres and other entertainment venues) was wholly unremarkable in its time; Schoenbaum relates, “The Liberty, which took its name from an ancient holy well, had belonged to a Benedictine priory. The convent was now dissolved: the well, decayed and filthy, replenished a horsepond; and the property came within the jurisdiction of the Crown. Around the well stood undeveloped land, except for a few derelict tenements, a crumbling barn, and some gardens. Here, on a small parcel of vacant ground between the tenements and the old brick wall of the precinct, Burbage’s workman began building . . .” (132).

The Globe itself was built in 1599 with the ruins of the torn-apart Theatre: “The timber from the dismantled Theatre [was] ferried across the river to Bankside, where they erected a new playhouse more splendid than any London had yet seen. This they called the Globe” (Schoenbaum 208). Historically, the first recorded performance at the Globe was Julius Caesar. Although no one really knows what the Globe looked like, it is traditionally thought to have been built, like its predecessors, in the theatre-in-the-round style, in which three wooden tiers of seats allow for near 360 degree views of the stage. The top gallery consists of a thatched roof called a tectum, while the center of the top is completely exposed, which means, as I found out during A Midsummer Night’s Dream, that during a rainstorm the people standing under the hole—called “groundlings”—have no protection from the storm other than what poncho or rain gear they bring themselves. Unlike our time, where sitting close to the stage at a performance is seen as a great privilege that costs a subsequent great amount of money, the wealthy patrons in Shakespeare’s time showed off by sitting high in the tiers—the higher you sat, the better off you were known to be. The cheap “seats” bought you a bit of standing space in front of the stage.

From 1599 to 1608 or 1609 the Globe playhouse was the home of the Chamberlain-King’s company and the only theater where it publicly presented its plays in London. The company, to which Shakespeare belonged, changed their name to the King’s men from the Lord Chamberlain’s upon the death of Queen Elizabeth. Despite this small change, the company experienced the remarkable success in the Globe that has come to signify an entire art. As Beckerman puts it, the construction of the Globe “initiated a glorious decade during which the company achieved a level of stability and a quality of productivity rarely matched in the history of the theater" (Beckerman ix). And remarkably, considering how very little we have by way of actual documents and resources from the Globe and its surrounding activities, it is this stability and quality that has ensured the Globe’s indelible mark upon Western civilization.

----------------------
Works Cited

Beckerman, Bernard. Shakespeare at the Globe: 1599-1609. New York: Macmillan, 1962.

Levin, Harry. “Introduction.” The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd Ed. Baker, Herschel, et al., eds. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. 1-25.

Schoenbaum, S. William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.

“Troilus and Cressida.” The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd Ed. Baker, Herschel, et al., eds. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

Canterbury Cathedral

Before studying about and visiting Canterbury Cathedral, I had only surface knowledge about the history of the building. In fact, mostly what I knew about the cathedral stemmed from my brush with Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales. Since I’m an English major this comes as no surprise that my scant knowledge of the place was linked through literature. But as I soon learned, the cathedral has a deeper history and place of importance in Britain’s religious landscape that moves well beyond the scope of Chaucer.

The existence of Canterbury Cathedral is coupled with the beginning of Christianity in England. Pope Gregory the Great is the man responsible for launching England’s conversion; according to tradition, he “had seen English youths in Rome and pronounced them not ‘Angles but angels’” (Morgan 77). The pope also knew that the queen of Kent was a Christian so he chose to send the first mission there, led by a Roman monk named Augustine. After converting the king, Augustine founded an abbey, and soon after became the first Archbishop of Canterbury in 601.

Canterbury Cathedral was thus built in the style called Anglo-Norman Romanesque. Along with Canterbury, cathedrals such as Durham, Tewskesbury, Winchester, Old Sarum, Chichester, Ely, Norwich, and Bath are built in this style. Willson gives further insight into the plans of cathedrals such as Canterbury: “Cathedrals were built in the shape of a cross, with the upper portion of the cross pointing toward the east. The lower portion was represented by the nave, which was the main body of the church . . . The transepts, large projections built to the north and south, represented the arms of the cross. It was above the intersection of nave and transepts that the central tower was erected” (113). On my visit to the cathedral, one of my favorite architectural aspects was the complicated network of ribbed vaulting in the nave and transepts. Although not as large and grand as the nave and tower in comparison, I also appreciated the peace and atmosphere of the cathedral’s cloisters.

Architecture aside, the cathedral is also notable for its shrine to Thomas à Becket, who was martyred in the cathedral in 1170. The story goes that Henry the king and Thomas the archbishop, having once been on the best of terms and insuperable allies, quarreled badly on the issue of church versus kingly authority. In a brief moment of rage, Henry was overhead declaring, “’What a parcel of fools and dastards have I nourished in my house that none of them will avenge me of this one upstart priest!’ Four knights, taking the king at his word, and no doubt hoping for reward, sailed to England to murder the Archbishop. They came upon him in his cathedral and cut him down with their swords, the last blow splitting their victim’s tonsured skull and spilling his brains on the stone floor of the north transept” (Hibbert 64). After Becket was buried in the church, the cathedral became a pilgrimage site almost immediately. As Chaucer wrote, “from every shires ende/ Of Engelond to Canterbury they wende,/ The holy blissful martyr for to seeke” (Norton lines 15-17). The story of Becket’s loyalty to the church and uncalled-for death remains a poignant story in the history of the cathedral.

Canterbury Cathedral is also notable for being the burial place of Edward Plantagenet, the “Black Prince,” and King Henry IV. Today the cathedral still serves as a place of worship and as the cathedral of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the leader of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

--------------------------
Works Cited

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon, 1992.

Morgan, Kenneth O., ed. The Oxford History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.

Norton Anthology of English Literature. 8th ed, Major Authors. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: Norton & Co., 2006.

Willson, David Harris. A History of England. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.

The Imperial War Museum: The Blitz

The Citizens’ War. The Blitz. The Battle of Britain. Known by many different names, the Germans’ incessant bombing of Britain’s major metropolitan areas, particularly London, during World War II has gone down in history as one of the most destructive military strikes recorded. One reason for the Blitz’s significance lies in its direct impact on the everyday lives of British civilians. As I wandered through the World War II exhibit and the Blitz Experience at the Imperial War Museum, I began to get some idea of the true extent of what the bombing meant--and still means--for Londoners.

For the Germans, the Blitz, which began on 7 September 1940, was seen as merely a prelude to invasion, or as a way to weaken the country to make Hitler’s taking over easier. I can only imagine how frightening it would be to live each day in fear of invasion; right now, as I walk around a London that successfully spurned Hitler’s advances, it’s hard to think of German forces taking over the country. But for the British during the Blitz, the possibility was an everyday reality. The people weren’t completely unprepared for what was coming though, for “by February 1941 the government had given out 2.5 million Anderson shelters, tents of corrugated iron people buried in backyards and covered with earth. Each one held six persons” (Roberts 801). The shelters, of which there was also a style called a Morrison, which as Brother Chittock mentioned, was more dangerous because it could mean the death of 300 instead six people, were not infallible though. Because the situation was so intense at the height of bombing in London, children were billeted with families in the country, most often for a year or longer. This ensured that they were safe, despite living with the possibility that one or both of their parents in London would be killed by the Luftwaffe.

Life during the Blitz was hard. Rationing drastically cut short the amount and quality of food prepared for meals. For example, Brother Chittock said that eggs were rationed to 1 egg per person for every two months, and everyone got a small piece of meat each week. The frugality and ingenuity of the people was amazing. Some kitchens experimented with “mock” dishes, in which ingredients more readily available were substituted for others harder to come by. Although it sounds like a good idea, the result was often unappetizing. But the people ate it anyway.

Despite the destruction and chaos caused by the bombing, the citizens showed brilliant resilience and shared a sense of banded community. In almost all cases, they met the challenges of war equally: “Britons spent many nights during the blitz in all kinds of shelters—underground stations, the crypts of churches, hotel lobbies, caves railway arches, and Turkish baths. Each shelter had a distinctive personality, but all had a neighborliness that came from shared sacrifice. A similar equality was found in factories and fields, where citizens doubled their energies so that Britain could defy the Nazis” (Roberts 801).


The people were not without a strong leader though, and the importance of Winston Churchill in getting Britain through not only the Blitz but also the war itself cannot be taken too lightly. As Roberts informs us, Churchill was known for his “candor, eloquence, and resoluteness. He promised not ‘peace in our time’ but ‘blood, toil, tears, and sweat’ and spoke of the resolve that ‘We shall fight in the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender. . . .’ His eloquence and courage inspired a people tired of the prosaic and timid. During the dark hours of the blitz his stirring speeches gave an exhilarating sense of heroism to millions” (800).

The Royal Air Force, whose part was fighting the Battle of Britain, also played an unequivocal part in keeping Britain free from Nazi oppression. Jenkins states that “The essence of the Battle of Britain was that the Germans endeavoured to destroy the British fighter force either in the air or on the ground, and also to disrupt the output, mounting strongly during the summer months, of Hurricanes, Spitfires and bombers” (631). Hitler’s failure to break up the RAF and other military forces turned into a punitive assault on London. Thus the citizens turned from the Battle of Britain to the Blitz. Nevertheless, the RAF continued to fight the Germans, perhaps even more fiercely than before.

The Blitz is an event in British history whose effects are still being felt, even by a short-term resident like me. I feel it whenever I read of a building that was destroyed “in the Blitz,” or when I hear of the Underground being delayed because an unexploded bomb from WWII was found in a Docklands canal. From my own study and experience I have come to appreciate and somewhat understand that importance of the Blitz in British history.

--------------------
Works Cited

Brother Chittock Talk. 10 June 2008 at BYU London Center.

Jenkins, Roy. Churchill. London: Pan Books, 2001.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History of England: 1688 to the Present. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.

The Houses of Parliament

The Houses of Parliament, also known in earlier history as The Palace of Westminster, stands on the site where Edward the Confessor had the original palace built in the first half of the eleventh century. In 1547 the royal residence was moved to Whitehall Palace, but the Lords continued to meet at Westminster, while the commons met in St. Stephen's Chapel. Ever since these early times, the Palace of Westminster has been home to the English Parliament.

In 1834, a fire broke out and destroyed much of the old palace; all that remained was the chapel crypt, the Jewel Tower and Westminster Hall. It was Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister, who saved the great hall by arranging for the fire engines to be brought right into the hall and personally supervising the fire fighting operation (HMSO).

The magnificent Gothic Revival masterpiece that stands today was built between 1840 and 1888 with the work of Charles Barry, who designed the buildings to blend with nearby Westminster Abbey. The two imposing towers, well known landmarks in London, are the clock tower, named after it's thirteen-ton bell called Big Ben, and Victoria tower, on whose flag pole the Union Jack flies when parliament is sitting. Much of the Victorian detail of the interior was the work of Barry's assistant, Augustus Pugin.

Entrance to Westminster Hall is permitted only as part of a guided tour, otherwise it can be viewed from St. Stephen's porch above. The hall measuring 240 feet by 60 feet has an impressive hammerbeam roof of oak and is said to be one of the most imposing medieval halls in Europe. In this dignified setting, coronation banquets were held until 1821. The statue of Oliver Cromwell, which stands outside the hall, serves as a reminder that here in 1653 he was sworn in as Lord Protector.

It was also used as England's highest court of law until the nineteenth century and it was here that Guy Fawkes was tried for attempting to blow up the House of Lords on 5th November 1605. After their religion was dealt a heavy blow in the aftermath of the Hampton Court Conference, a group of English Catholic gentlemen conspired against the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons (Hibbert 125). On that fateful day in November, a “hired Catholic soldier of fortune, Guy Fawkes, plac[ed] thirty-six barrels of gunpowder in a room underneath the House of Lords. The powder might well have gone off at the beginning of Parliament had not one of the conspirators revealed the plot to the government” (Roberts 332). The conspirators, along with Guy Fawkes, were captured and executed for treason. The famed Gunpowder Plot sparked the annual national celebration of Guy Fawkes Day, in which effigies are burned on Bonfire Night.

The route to the upper and lower houses takes you through the huge wooden doors into St. Stephen's hall. The vaulted ceiling and murals were designed by Barry to replicate the medieval chapel where the Commons met until 1834. From here you are ushered into the well-known octagonal Central Lobby, whose tiled walls are inscribed with Latin mottos. This is the central meeting place where constituents can meet or "lobby" their Members of Parliament. It is from here that you will be shown your direction either to the House of Lords or Commons.

An incendiary bomb destroyed the House of Commons in 1941. A reconstruction of Barry's original design for the house, taken from St. Stephen's chapel, the commons old meeting place, was completed in 1950. The seating arrangement in the house is reminiscent of choir stalls, the members of the cabinet sit on the front benches while opposition senior members sit directly opposite. The distance between the benches marked out on the floor in red lines, is exactly two sword lengths and one foot apart. Members are not allowed to cross these lines, thus ensuring that debates are kept orderly. In the centre of the floor stands the Table of the House, on which the mace is placed at the start of each parliamentary sitting; this is the Speaker's sceptre. The speaker of the house presides over sittings and (attempts) to keep order.

The House of Lords, decorated in scarlet and gold, has all the grandeur one would expect in this chamber. This is where Her Majesty the Queen comes to open Parliament each November. Placed beneath a regal canopy, the gold throne that dominates the house is where the Queen sits to deliver the traditional opening speech. The Lord Chancellor sits opposite, on the famous Woolsack, which is a large scarlet cushion filled with wool, a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages when wool was England's largest export. For me, the Houses of Parliament in all their weighty glory next to the Thames will always remain an iconic and integral part of the British landscape.

----------------------
Works Cited

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon, 1992.

HMSO. 10 Downing Street. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/. Retrieved 8 June 2008 from http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page152.asp.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History Of England: Prehistory to 1714. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.

Stonehenge

For most of my life, Stonehenge has always been associated with the mystical and ancient history of England. In a few words, the unknown. Set in a quiet and peaceful on the Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, Stonehenge has existed since time out of mind, before the iconic veneration it is given today by thousands of visitors. My sentiments on Stonehenge were echoed by Dr. Talbot, who remarked on that breezy, sunny day we visited the site that seeing places like Stonehenge makes all the medieval and Roman sites we’ve experienced thus far seem like a drop in the bucket in terms of time.

My knowledge of this prehistoric monument was somewhat limited to what I had learned in my art history classes. I knew that the Sarsen Circle was supposed to be held in place with mortice and tenon joints, and that it employs post and lintel construction. Also, Stonehenge was begun around 3,500 years ago, and was built in several stages from about 3,000 B.C.

The alignment of the stones leaves little doubt that the circle is connected with the sun and the passing of the seasons, and that its builders possessed a sophisticated understanding of both arithmetic and astronomy. Despite popular belief, the circle was not built by the Druids, who flourished more than 1,000 years after Stonehenge was completed (Leapman 262).

The most recent issue of National Geographic gives the following timeline in the building of Stonehenge:

3000 B.C. Middle Neolithic
Earthwork Enclosure: A circular ditch-and-bank monument some 375 feet across was cut into the chalk of Salisbury Plain about 3000 B.C. This earthwork is the “henge” in Stonehenge, though most Neolithic henges were built with the ditch inside the bank. Timber posts may have stoof in some of the 56 circular pits that lined the bank’s inner edge.

Timber Monuments: A distinct new phase took shape in the middle to late Neolithic period. Timber posts were erected in linear patterns near the northeast entrance and across the center toward the southern entrance. Cremation remains lead archeologists to believe the site was being used as a cemetery.

2500 B.C. Enter the Stones
Bluestones: Circular or semicircular arrangements of stones probably appeared by 2500 B.C., the earliest being pairs of four-ton bluestones (their color when wet) now known to have been brought about 250 miles from Wales. Also added: features called Station Stones, the Altar Stone, and the Heel Stone just outside the northeast entrance.

Sarsen Circle
Stonehenge gained its iconic shape with the creation of the 16-foot-high Sarsen Circle—30 worked stones topped by lintels. In a horseshoe configuration inside the circle towered five freestanding trilithons, each formed of two upright stones linked by a lintel. The tallest reached 25 feet. The chalk bank was recut, small circular earthworks were added, and a banked avenue ran nearly two miles to the River Avon.

2000 B.C. Early Bronze--Later Refinements
Bluestones that had been cast aside were repositioned as a circle and a horseshoe within the Sarsen Circle, and a double ring of pits was dug. By about 1500 B.C. Stonehenge was no longer maintained.

Recent evidence suggests that Stonehenge was used as a burial site earlier than was previously thought by researchers. An article on CNN.com suggests, “They estimate that up to 240 people were buried within Stonehenge, all as cremation deposits” (“Stonehenge”). While the complete purpose for building Stonehenge is not known yet, this bit of research takes us one step closer to understanding this enigmatic piece of the puzzle that is the history of ancient Britain.

-------------------------
Works Cited

Alexander, Caroline. “If the Stones Could Speak: Searching for the Meaning of Stonehenge.” National Geographic. June 2008: 39.

Leapman, Michael. DK Eyewitness Travel: Great Britain. London: 2007.

“Stonehenge was a place of burial, researchers say.” CNN.com. Accessed 7 June 2008 from http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/29/stonehenge.ap/index.html.

Battle of Hastings

It’s called “1066 Country” for a reason. In a quiet area in the South Downs of Kent stands the village of Battle. Despite its now peaceful atmosphere, it, along with Hastings, is famous as being the site of one of the most significant turning points in British history. The Battle of Hastings has carved a spot in the British annals as being the last successful invasion of England and as marking the end of Anglo-Saxon England and the beginning of French Norman rule. As Roberts tells us, “William’s conquest of England gave an abrupt turn to the path of English history. It imposed on England an alien aristocracy, introduced into the kingdom feudal institutions, and linked England—commercially, ecclesiastically, and culturally—with Europe, not Scandinavia” (68).

The immediate causes of such sweeping change are simple. In January 1066, the death of King Edward (called “the Confessor”) left the kingdom without a definite heir. Contention broke out among competing factions, and eventually Harold Godwinson accepted the crown, only to be immediately a traitor and a liar by William. One reason for William’s outrage is that supposedly, in 1064, or maybe early in 1065, “Harold visited Duke William in Normandy. He went, say the Norman sources, as Edward’s ambassador, to swear an oath confirming an earlier promise of the English crown” (Morgan 102). Yet another story gives a second explanation: “Harold falls into William’s hands by mischance, is forced to swear the oath, and returns shamefacedly to a horrified King Edward” (Morgan 102). In both cases, the English crown is promised to Duke William by Harold, making his taking the crown an act of treason, even if the oath had been given under forced conditions. Thus William, who has been painted as more bent on taking England’s wealth rather than the kingship, took Harold’s crowning as justification for launching a full-scale invasion of the island country.

Harold’s armies, exhausted after winning a decisive victory over two rivals also vying for the kingdom, Harold’s brother Tostig and the King of Norway, met William’s on 14 October 1066. The battle was evenly pitched, and according to Roberts, “William had some 5000 troops, Harold perhaps 7000, though many were untrained, ill-equipped recruits. On both sides the soldiers wore chainmail and conical helmets, carried shields, and fought with spear and sword” (72-73). Although the odds didn’t show a clear favor early in the battle, the tide of the fighting turned in favor of the Normans when Harold’s army “seem to have been enticed down the slope in pursuit of real or feigned retreats, and then cut off and overwhelmed” (Morgan 103). Harold’s army was broken up and after a hard fought battle, William emerged victorious when at the end of the day, “Harold was killed, shot through the eye by an arrow as tradition supposes, then hacked to death by Norman knights, one of whom cut off his leg” (Hibbert 39). Harold's death is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, below. The spot where Harold fell is now marked by the high altar of Battle Abbey.


There are different perspectives to take in this story. One viewpoint is that of the conqueror and his knights; to them, the battle was merely a conquest in pursuit of a rich country under the guise of bruised honor and the perceived denial of rights to the crown. In this case, the name William the Conqueror seems fitting. But a second perspective, in which William is merely and sarcastically called “the Bastard,” involves that of the English people, who would now be subjected to uncaring, Norman overlords. Whichever perspective you take in the story, whether in support of the conquered or the conqueror, the fact remains that “the Battle of Hastings represented the victory of new tactics over old, of a mobile cavalry, supported by archers, over a massed infantry wielding ax and spear” (Roberts 73). And in the end, that is the only difference that matters.

From this turning point battle came the vast influence of French on the English language and the Norman feudal system. The unassuming farmland of this former battlefield made an impression on me not only for the gorgeous scene it presented, and but also for my knowing that one of the most important battles in the story of Britain took place there.

----------------------
Works Cited

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon, 1992.

Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History Of England: Prehistory to 1714. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.

Westminster Abbey

Westminster Abbey stands out to me as the religious center of English life. It has played an important role in the country's ecclesiastical dealings since, as the Abbey’s official website tells us, the time when “Benedictine monks first came to this site in the middle of the tenth century.” It has been used as a place for daily worship ever since that time.

The current building was begun in 1050 by Edward “the Confessor,” whose death and subsequent bungled succession would result in the Norman invasion of 1066. It is ironic to consider that he looked to Norman architecture to plan his abbey, when only a few years later the country would be ruled by the Normans. In fact, William was crowned on Christmas Day in 1066 at Westminster Abbey. The Abbey has been the setting of coronations since that time. Today, all that remains of the Abbey’s Norman ancestry are the round arches and huge supporting columns of the undercroft in the cloisters. This area now houses the Abbey Museum, but was originally part of the living quarters of the monks. Something else I thought was interesting is that the Abbey is home to the oldest door in England, which has survived since the 11th century. It now hands in the vestibule of the Chapter House.

A spectacular part of the Abbey for me was the Lady chapel, built by King Henry VII--the first of the Tudor monarchs--between 1503 and 1519 to replace the 13th century chapel. The Perpendicular architecture here is in total contrast to the rest of the Abbey. In regards to who designed the chapel, “No accounts for this building have been found, but it is thought that the architects were Robert Janyns and William Vertue” (Westminster Abbey). It has been called "one of the most perfect buildings ever erected in England" and "the wonder of the world". The chapel is roofed with a remarkable fan vault design and emanates with colored light from the stained glass windows. The windows depict the Battle of Britain, created by Hugh Easton.

One of the most interesting stories of the Abbey deals with the Coronation Chair, whose history has implications for the importance of the Church in state affairs in medieval times. Hibbert tells us that in his war against the Scots, Edward I triumphed and “returned . . . to England carrying with him the Stone of Scone on which the Kings of Scotland had long been crowned. He took it to Westminster Abbey where it can still be seen beneath the Coronation Chair which Edward had constructed to enclose it and which has been used for every coronation performed in the Abbey since his time” (77). In recent history, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair gave the Stone of Scone back to Scotland, where it now resides.

Among Westminster Abbey’s historical ironies is that of the tomb of Queen Elizabeth I and her sister Mary, who is also known as “Bloody Mary.” The two sisters were never great friend. Besides the fact that their father, Henry VIII, divorced Mary’s mother in order to marry Elizabeth’s mother, the two were also bitter religious rivals. Elizabeth, who landed on the side of the Protestants and Anglican church, was greatly displeased with the religious zeal with which Mary persecuted anyone who wasn’t Catholic. Given their tension-filled relationship, it is no small irony that they are buried in the same tomb at Westminster Abbey.

Another significant section of the Abbey is Poets’ Corner, which house the remains or tombs of such notable authors as Chaucer, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Eliot, Auden, Wordsworth, the Brontes, Austen, and Dr. Johnson. My personal favorite was Thomas Hardy. I think it’s a fitting tribute to these great thinkers to be placed in such a prominent and important church.

A final section of the Abbey I enjoyed were the cloisters. They are the most atmospheric of the building, and when Big Ben tolls just across the street, the scene is peaceful and contemplative, putting you in mind of the ages that have passed.

---------------------
Works Cited

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon, 1992.

Morgan, Kenneth O. Ed. The Oxford History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.

Westminster Abbey. 2007. http://www.westminster-abbey.org/. Accessed 12 June 2008 from http://www.westminster-abbey.org/history-research/.

Tower of London

Upon arriving at the Tower and making my way to the guided tour, the Beefeater tour guide made sure my fellow Tower-goers and I understood that the Tower, despite its nasty reputation as a prison and execution ground, was built as a palace and a fortress. And for the most part, the Beefeater (more appropriately called a Yeoman Warder), was right. Since the original Norman construction, the Tower has undergone massive changes as buildings have been added, demolished, and remodeled to suit the purposes of its owner at the time.

According to Diehl and Donnelly, the Tower “has alternately, and often simultaneously, been used as a royal palace, a fortress, a zoo, a military garrison, the Royal Treasury, an arsenal, the Royal Mint, a state office building, a museum and the repository of the Crown Jewels” (viii). The first building in the complex, the White Tower, was built by William of Normandy, also called “the Conqueror by historians.” Completed around 1100 AD, the White Tower was built in the typical Norman style that castles were constructed in at this time around England. William incorporated Roman walls in his castle, which was composed of “a large enclosure, the bailey, which was ditched, banked, and palisaded; within this there was a great mound of earth, the motte, on which stood a timbered tower, or keep” (Roberts 77). The construction of this castle presented a formidable military challenge to any who wished to invade the fortress. The moat surrounding the walls of the Tower was in itself enough to keep any would-be invaders out. As our guide further informed us, the moat was built to be flooded by the Thames; yet as the tidal comings and goings of this river proved, the moat was not always filled, which left the Tower at a disadvantage during certain times of the day. To solve this dilemma, the king called on a Dutch architect, who told him to dig the moat deeper so as to trap the water when the tide moved out. Soon after the completion of this project another problem presented itself. The moat, being the waste receptacle for some thousands of inhabitants of the Tower and surrounding area, was not being washed clean everyday by the Thames; as a result, a muddy, disgusting mess of fecal matter and household refuse was left to settle permanently the bottom of the moat, successfully deterring any more aspiring invaders of the Tower complex. Today the moat is a lovely lawn area (see above) on which the residing Warders exercise their dogs.

Despite the Beefeater’s insistence on painting a docile, almost homey picture of the Tower as a simple palace and fortress, the Tower continues most famously to evoke images of death, torture, and horror—for good reason. The history surrounding the Tower is one that is consistent with the popular view many hold of it, no matter how many Beefeaters insist you think otherwise. One such grisly story is that of Archbishop Sudbury, who was executed during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. This rebellion began because of the discontent over the Statute of Labourers issued in 1351, which made it a crime for peasants to ask for more wages or to leave his place of work to seek higher wages (Hibbert 85). Diehl and Donnelly give one result of this uprising: “Archbishop Sudbury was thrown across a log as a man with a broadsword stepped forward. The first blow struck the archbishop’s neck, slicing it open. When Sudbury cried out in pain and automatically raised his hand to the gushing wound, his executioner struck again, hacking of his fingers. Writhing in pain and bleeding profusely, the archbishop thrashed on the ground as his tormentor continued hacking at him. His skull was split open, as was his shoulder. After at least eight more strokes, the mangled corpse of Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England, lay dead on Tower Hill” (25). Private executions carried on the Tower Green were no less gruesome. One such famous account is that of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who was beheaded on 27th May 1541. According to one account, “The countess made the mistake of appearing to side with Katherine of Aragon against the king and he declared her a traitor. She was arrested two years before her execution and badly treated and neglected as a prisoner in the Tower of London. She was not given a trial. She was small, frail and ill. But she was proudly noble. She was dragged to the block, but refused to lay her head down on it. As she was forced down and struggled, the inexperienced executioner made a gash in ther shoulder rather than her neck. She leapt from the block and was chased by the executioner. She was struck eleven times before she died” (Alchin). These two stories are only a sample of the horror so many men and women faced at the Tower.

Today the Tower is used to house Yeoman Warders, as a repository for the Crown Jewels, and as a museum that recounts the site’s long and colorful history.

-------------------
Works Cited

Alchin, L.K. Castles. 20 July 2005. http://www.castles.me.uk. Retrieved 27 May 2008 from http://www.castles.me.uk/executions-beheading-tower-of-london.htm.

Diehl, Daniel and Mark P. Donnelly. Tales from the Tower of London. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Pub., 2004.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon, 1992.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History Of England: Prehistory to 1714. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.

British Museum: The Beaker Culture of Ancient Britain (2500-1500 BC)

The settlement of Neolithic England is characterized by waves of immigration spanning some 7,000 years. Within this amount of time, one group of immigrants, christened the Beaker Folk by historians, and deemed the “so-called ‘Beaker’ culture” by the British Museum (at right), settled in Britain at the end of the late Neolithic period and the beginning of the Bronze Age about 2000 BC. Immediately upon the Beakers’ arrival, the immigrants began diffusing their culture throughout their new land.

Hibbert tells us that, “Among the new immigrants were the Beaker Folk who . . . perhaps originally from Spain, came from the areas now known as Holland and the Rhineland.” After settling in comfortably with the locals and other immigrants, the Beakers set to work instilling new beliefs and literally changing the landscape of ancient Britain: “It was they who were responsible for bringing the immense stones from Pembrokeshire in South Wales for the second stage of the building of Stonehenge, probably shipping them across the Bristol Channel and up the river Avon on rafts, then hauling them up to the site from the banks of the river at West Amesbury on tree trunks serving as rollers” (Hibbert 13-14).

Along with new knowledge in metal working, particularly with copper, the new arrivals brought a new burial rite. The ancient Britain exhibit in the British Museum includes a preserved and relocated Beaker burial site. Studying the burial site and the little knowledge we have about Beaker ceremonies has led me to appreciate this small aspect about Britain’s ancient past.

Among the thousands of immigrants that came to Britain during the Neolithic period, the burial sites of the Beaker culture have created a lasting impression on the country’s historic landscape. Burke describes the burial ceremony, which has led to the Beaker Folks’ name: “Each body was buried in a crouching position, accompanied by a stylised drinking-pot” (12); the beakers themselves are believed to have held some kind of fermented drink that played a part in the funeral rites. Roberts also tells us that “they buried their dead singly, in graves containing a dagger, a bow and arrow, some ornaments, and a beaker. Over this grave they piled earth in a round mound” (9-10). Investigating burial sites reveals the class structure of a society. For instance, a grave containing more riches than the graves around it indicate a system of aristocracy within that culture. That being said, Beaker Folk graves that have been found containing treasures beyond the ordinary graves (such as slitted cups, gold pendants, bone tweezers, dress pins, and finely designed pottery) reflect “the political power and the social distinctions that existed in the densely populated, wealthy Wessex of that time” (Roberts 10). The contents of a Beaker grave not only signify class, but also gender. For instance, one of the museum’s informational plaques in front of a display of a copper dagger, stone wristguard, and bone belt fitting informs us that these objects from male burial site signify “warrior” status, and that “female graves are usually more sparsely furnished and contain no weapons, buttons, or belt rings.” The plaque in front of what is called The Barnack Burial (see picture of reconstruction above left) tells us that the possessions included in the burial were seen as necessary for the deceased in their sojourn to the afterlife.


-----------------------------
Works Cited

Burke, John. An Illustrated History of England. London: Collins, 1981.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon, 1992.

Roberts, Clayton, and David Roberts. A History Of England: Prehistory to 1714. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.