Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

The murder of a child is a particularly heinous act that tugs at the heart strings. In the eyes of society, the murderer of a child must be a particularly horrible individual. The death of a small English boy in 1255 created a story that stuck in the cultural memory right up until modern times.

On 31 July 1255, nine-year-old Hugh disappeared in Lincoln. A month later, on 29 August, his body was discovered in a well. The search for the murderer was on, and attention turned to the segment of society that was often blamed for criminal acts: Jews.

John of Lexington, brother to the Bishop of Lincoln, imprisoned a local Jew named Copin, accusing him of the murder and offering him amnesty from execution in exchange for a confession. John supposedly convinced King Henry III to this amnesty deal, even though there was no evidence that Copin actually committed the deed. Henry arrived in Lincoln a month after the arrest of Copin. He ordered Copin executed, and then had 90 randomly selected Jews arrested and taken to the Tower of London for an investigation and trial about the murder. Eighteen of the Jews refused to participate in the trial, claiming it was a sham, and were hanged for their refusal.

As for the remaining Jews: a Dominican friar helped free one, John, who had converted to Christianity. The remainder were condemned to execution, but Dominicans—no doubt understanding that it was highly unlikely that there was actual guilt involved—pleaded for their lives and they were released.

Matthew Paris created a colorful, detailed, and wholly fictitious scene about the death:

This year [1255] about the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [27 July], the Jews of Lincoln stole a boy called Hugh, who was about eight years old. After shutting him up in a secret chamber, where they fed him on milk and other childish food, they sent to almost all the cities of England in which there were Jews, and summoned some of their sect from each city to be present at a sacrifice to take place at Lincoln, in contumely and insult of Jesus Christ. For, as they said, they had a boy concealed for the purpose of being crucified; so a great number of them assembled at Lincoln, and then they appointed a Jew of Lincoln judge, to take the place of Pilate, by whose sentence, and with the concurrence of all, the boy was subjected to various tortures. They scourged him till the blood flowed, they crowned him with thorns, mocked him, and spat upon him; each of them also pierced him with a knife, and they made him drink gall, and scoffed at him with blasphemous insults, and kept gnashing their teeth and calling him Jesus, the false prophet. And after tormenting him in diverse ways they crucified him, and pierced him to the heart with a spear. When the boy was dead, they took the body down from the cross, and for some reason disemboweled it; it is said for the purpose of their magic arts.

There had been previous "martyrs" whose deaths had been blamed on Jews, but the case of Hugh had royal involvement which elevated it to legendary status. A shrine was built at Lincoln Cathedral to the little martyr and "little saint," drawing visitors and donations. This may well have been Lexington's motivation for turning the child's death into a martyrdom at Jewish hands, acting on his brother's behalf, to increase traffic and money to Lincoln.

Why did Paris' description involve so many Jews? Why were 90 Jews rounded up by the king? Why was it assumed that there was more involvement than just a single murderer? To understand that, we have to talk about one of the most ridiculous accusations against medieval Jewry, the belief in "blood libel." See you tomorrow.

Financing a War

When Simon de Montfort wanted to kick off the Second Barons War, he needed funding. One of the easiest ways for most medieval Europeans to free up money was to force a cancellation of debts to the Jews. Since many of these debts were owed by Montfort's baronial friends, their gratitude would extend to supporting him against King Henry III.

One of the barons' demands of Henry was that he write off the Jewish debts. This he would not do: Henry used occasional tallages (taxes) on the Jews to fund his own endeavors. His healthy balance sheet needed Jews to be able to collect what was owed them so that he could access take it.

In April of 1264, Montfort encouraged his followers and others to begin widespread persecution and even execution of the Jews, destroying their records of debt. One of the main centers of the Jewish population in England was in Canterbury, where about 20 Jewish households accounted for about 100 or so Jews. There had been, in fact, a widespread persecution of the Jews a couple years earlier, when lay and clerical citizens attacked and burned some of their houses, although no one was killed that time.

A member of Montfort's rebellion, the brutal Gilbert de Clare, occupied Canterbury and instigated "The Massacre of the Jews." An unknown number of Jews were killed and their property looted, and several Jewish women were forcibly baptized. Any remaining Jews fled Canterbury. The most prominent member of the Canterbury Jewry was Solomon, son of Josce. When he returned in 1265 (he fled abroad during the troubles), Henry III returned his property to him.

Montfort's son Henry and the 6th Earl of Derby, Robert Ferrers, led a pogrom that killed all the Jews in Worcester. Montfort's son Simon led the attacks in Winchester. In London, a chief Montfort supporter, John Fitz John, led the attacks and is said to have killed two of the leading Jewish figures with his bare hands; a total of 500 Jews in London were killed. In 1264 and 1265, attacks were made in Lincoln and Cambridge, and financial records were destroyed.

Anti-Jewish sentiment was always bubbling just under the surface, looking for a reason to burst forth and lead to atrocities. There were often single incidents that were blamed on the Jews. Even if that blame was proven false, the ill feeling left its mark and was ready to be invoked to justify later attacks. One such that stayed in the public consciousness and could not be expunged was the story of little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, which I will share with you tomorrow.

War Comes to Oxford

By the early 1260s, Oxford had become a place where scholars went to teach and learn. Violence was not unknown, as conflicts between students and townspeople were common. Town vs. Gown is not only a common phrase to express this conflict, it was the very first post in this blog.

Oxford became a center for another conflict, however, at the same time that the colleges of Balliol and Merton were beginning. This conflict was a little more widespread and is called the Second Barons War.

The First Barons War was a rebellion against King John and led to the Magna Carta in 1215. John's son Henry III had his own troubles with the barons who were always looking for ways to increase their own power and reduce the king's authority. Simon de Montfort, the 6th Earl of Leicester, in April 1263 called fellow barons to meet him at Oxford where they discussed rebellion against Henry's policies.

Oxford was a significant meeting place, because a few years earlier it was the site of the Provisions of Oxford, a series of reforms forced on Henry in 1258 in exchange for the barons agreeing to shore up the royal treasury (Henry had depleted it fighting in Sicily on behalf of the pope). The barons and their armies marched on London and trapped Henry in the Tower, taking him prisoner. Montfort took over the government, but his authority did not last long and Henry escaped.

Henry reached out to Louis IX of France to arbitrate. Simon de Montfort agreed to this. Louis declared the Provisions of Oxford annulled in January 1264. Henry prepared for the inevitable breakdown of negotiations and took his forces to Oxford (more centrally located than London) and made it his military headquarters. On 12 March in 1264 he suspended all teaching until Michaelmas (29 September).

Montfort, wishing to make sure he had funds to fight a war, did what many medieval nobles did: he made sure people would have money and be grateful to give it to him by eliminating their cash debts. He did this by attacks against Jews, the moneylenders, and therefore ensuring that debts would not have to be repaid. Let us go into some of the specific atrocities tomorrow.

Who Was First at Oxford?

The claim of Balliol College to be the first college at Oxford has been challenged by both University College and Merton College. Balliol was believed to be founded in 1263; in 1266 a royal writ exists that refers to Balliol in that its existence depends upon money from John Balliol.

Merton College can also trace its origins to the 1260s. Walter Merton was Bishop of Rochester and chancellor to Henry III and later Edward I. He wanted to create an independent college and set up funds to keep it self-governing. Officially, it was founded in 1264, and it claims to be the oldest college in Oxford. Its argument is that it had statutes as of 1264, whereas Balliol did not get a set of statutes until set up by Dervorguilla of Galloway (John Balliol's widow) in 1282.

University College has a grand claim: that it was founded by Alfred the Great (849-899) in 872. They attribute their college arms to Alfred and celebrated their millennium in 1872. More realistically, it was founded by William of Durham. William was archdeacon of Caux in northern Normandy. When students rioted at the University of Paris in 1229, he may have been the leader of students who left the continent and settled in Oxford. What is true is that he died in 1249 and left 310 marks in his will to support scholars in Oxford for the study exclusively of theology (this changed in the 16th century). University College was not officially recognized, however, until c.1280.

So which one has the better claim to be the oldest college in Oxford? Is it decided by who first devoted funds to scholars whether or not they were officially recognized  (University)? Or the first to have official statutes (Merton)? Or the first recognized by a royal document that acknowledges the name and existence of the institution despite the lack of statutes (Balliol)?

It's all one to me. It is interesting, though, to look at what else was happening in 1263 and 1264 in Oxford, what with Henry III suspending classes in March 1264 when he occupied the city. Check back tomorrow and I'll explain.

John Balliol and Balliol College

John I Balliol (died 25 October 1268) was an English nobleman. He married Dervorguilla of Galloway, whose extensive lands (inherited from her family) made her (and by extension, him) very wealthy. He was asked by Henry III of England to take a role as protector of the young Alexander III, King of Scotland. He supported Henry when the Barons were rebelling, and was captured by them at the Battle of Lewes, but escaped and rejoined Henry later.

Balliol and Dervorguilla had many children. Among them was John, who became King of Scotland (though not for long). Their daughter Eleanor married John II Comyn, head of the most powerful family in Scotland, who supported the younger John's ascension to the throne.

The Balliol family had long disputed certain lands in the village of Sadberge in Durham from which the Bishops of Durham believed they were owed the rents. This came to a head between John Balliol and Bishop of Durham Walter of Kirkham in 1260, when (so the legend says) Balliol abducted the bishop. Balliol's penance was to provide funds for the education of young men. In 1263 he rented a house in the suburbs of Oxford to accommodate poor students.

A royal writ in 1266 mentions the institution in Oxford as dependent on Balliol's financial support. After his death, Dervorguilla made several donations that maintained and expanded the "House of the Scholars of Balliol." It was given a set of statutes in 1282.

There were originally 16 students who received eight pence per week to live on. A century later, its headmaster was John Wycliffe, translator into English of the Bible and a church reformer. In the 1400s, Bishop of Ely William Gray donated (gathered from his travels) the single largest collection of medieval manuscripts in England.

Balliol College is the oldest continuously run college in the English-speaking world. Or is it? Despite the story of its founding, there are two other colleges who claim they are the oldest in Oxford. Let's compare their claims tomorrow and ask the question: what makes a start date official?

The Fight for Scotland Concludes

(See Parts One and Two)

After rejecting the claims of others, The Great Cause concluded that John Balliol was the most appropriate choice for King of Scotland. Primogeniture was in his favor: he was the descendant of the eldest surviving child of Margaret of Huntingdon, the eldest daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Henry, son of King David I. David had begun the tradition (familiar in England) of dynastic inheritance. Balliol supported the idea that Scotland was an indivisible kingdom and should not be split up, an approach the assembled nobles of Scotland preferred.

On 17 November 1292, Edward I of England announced the choice of Balliol, who was acceptable to the majority of nobles as well as John II Comyn, the most powerful baron and Balliol's brother-in-law. Even some of the supporters of Robert Bruce agreed to the decision.

At this point in his life, John Balliol was in his early-to-mid 40s. His father, John, 5th Baron of Balliol, had founded Balliol College in Oxford. He owned extensive estates in Galloway from his mother's side and English estates from the Huntingdon side, as well as properties in France.

His coronation did not put Scotland's rule back on an even keel. Edward's help was also seen as interference, and Edward continued to undermine Balliol's authority. He demanded homage; he insisted on authority over any legal disputes between Scottish and English subjects. Scots lost faith in King John, and gave him the nickname Toom Tabard ("empty coat"). To be fair, the nickname might not have referred to him lacking in authority, but might have been because the Balliol arms were a fairly simple escutcheon. (The illustration from 1562 shows the Balliol arms, but also mocks his situation with a broken scepter.)

Balliol might have thought making a treaty with France was a good idea and showed initiative and independence, but that did not sit well with Edward. Edward invaded Scotland in the first move of a trend that lasted into the early 14th century and has been named the Wars of Scottish Independence. Balliol abdicated in July 1296 after some bad military defeats. He was taken to the Tower of London, but in 1299 was allowed to go to France. He died at a family estate in Hélicourt, succeeded by a son, Edward, who later had some small successes at trying to claim the throne. John Balliol was succeeded as King of Scotland by Robert the Bruce, grandson of the Robert Bruce whose claim was rejected in favor of Balliol's.

Tomorrow let's look away from the mess in Scotland and head south to Oxford and Balliol College.

The Fight for Scotland Continues

(Part One) So the 13 claimants for the throne of Scotland came down to the four most likely candidates.

The An t-Adhbhar Mòr (Scottish Gaelic, "The Great Cause"), a group of 104 men plus King Edward I of England, would hear all the claimants and determine who should ascend to the throne. This was modeled on the centumviri (Latin "hundred men"), the court of 105 used in Roman Law to settle questions of succession to property. They included 24 of Edward's council.

One of the points that needed to be decided by the Great Cause was the primacy of primogeniture (of which there were different interpretations) or customary law. Primogeniture could be male-preference or any first-born child. "Customary law" would split the parent's possessions among the children. The four chief claimants, who hired lawyers to speak on their behalf, were as follows:

• John Balliol, Lord of Galloway
• Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale
• John Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings
• Floris V, Count of Holland

Floris V's great-great-grandmother was Ada, a daughter of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, who was son of King David I of Scotland. Floris claimed that when William the Lion was king, William's brother David had abandoned his right to the throne of Scotland by accepting the title of Earl of Huntingdon. This would invalidate the claims of the three other men listed above, who were all descended from Earl David. The problem was he had no proof, and assured the investigators that there must be records of this in Scotland itself if they would only search. At the orders of Edward I of England, they did search, and found nothing after several months to support his claim. Floris abandoned his claim in summer of 1292.

John Hastings was also descended from Ada, daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon. He was an Englishman with a distinguished pedigree who in 1290 was summoned to Parliament and made a peer as Lord Hastings. His genealogical claim wasn't strong, so he took a legal approach. He argued that Scotland was not a proper kingdom, since it was only recently that its rulers were crowned and anointed. Therefore, there was no need to hand an intact kingdom over to a single person, and customary law allowed it to be split up among the heirs. The Great Cause did not take much deliberation to reject this idea and dismiss Hastings' claim.

Robert Bruce was the closest in blood to the now-defunct dynasty that started with David I. His lawyers also claimed that Alexander III (whose death started this whole difficulty) had named Bruce as his heir at a time when there seemed to be no other option. It's also worth pointing out that Bruce (as well as Balliol) had jumped at the chance to make a claim as soon as news of Margaret's death was known. Bruce argued against Floris's claim that the kingdom could be split, declaring that Scotland was indivisible and primogeniture should apply. Unfortunately for that claim, John of Balliol was descended from a child (Margaret) of David of Huntingdon who was older than the child (Isobel) from whom Bruce was descended. King Edward ruled that primogeniture through eldest surviving child pertained, and Bruce was dismissed. (Note: Edward had already established that England would be inherited by his eldest, a daughter, if he had no sons; absolute primogeniture, which means the sex of the child doesn't matter, was on his mind.)

Edward's determination of Bruce's claim happened in November 1292. Then there was a "November Surprise": Floris re-asserted his claim, and Bruce showed up to offer his public support of Floris! Floris decided to argue that the documents that would support him must have been stolen and his case should be reconsidered. As for Bruce, he did a 180° turn on the indivisibility of the kingdom. It seemed that he and Floris had probably made a deal: if Floris won, Bruce would be given a chunk of Scotland. Floris' claim was thrown out again for lack of evidence.

You can probably guess who became the next King of Scotland, and we will definitely present that case tomorrow, but today I leave you with an interesting footnote that explains the illustration.

The illustration above is of Pluscarden Abbey, currently a Catholic Benedictine monastery near Elgin, Moray. It was founded by Alexander II for the now-defunct Valliscaulian Order, which was absorbed by the Cistercians in the 18th century. In The Hague, Netherlands, there is a "certified" copy of a document that claims exactly what Floris claimed, signed and dated 1291 by the Bishop of Moray. It was supposedly found at Pluscarden Abbey. It is, of course, considered a forgery by all (I assume; there may be descendants of Floris V who have other thoughts).

See you soon.

The Fight for Scotland Begins

After the death of Alexander III of Scotland and his granddaughter, Margaret, the problem of who would rule Scotland rose again in September of 1290. Thirteen claimants came forward, including a half-hearted attempt by Margaret's father, Eric II of Norway.

Of the claimants, all but one were linked to King David I of Scotland—even Edward I was descended from David's sister, Matilda—mostly through David's son Henry, the Earl of Huntingdon. 

Many of the claimants were related by "natural birth"; that is, they were from extramarital affairs by Henry of Huntingdon or by David's son William the Lion. Two of the claimants took action immediately after hearing the news of Margaret's death. John Balliol forged an alliance with Edward's representative in England, Bishop of Durham Antony Bek. Robert Bruce went to Scone with an army, looking to demand the throne from the Guardians of Scotland, who had assembled there to greet Margaret on her arrival.

The Guardians of Scotland, a group of six regents who managed the kingdom after the death of Alexander, appealed to Edward I of England for his assistance and support. Edward offered to help, but used the opportunity to gain something for himself: declaring Scotland's king as a vassal of England's king, and Scotland no longer an independent kingdom. Rather than offer evidence from the past that he was the feudal overlord of Scotland, he asked the Guardians to provide evidence that he was not. The Guardians replied that (being kingless) they had no one with the authority to agree with his claim.

Edward was not happy with this reply, but since they still needed his help, he was able to get the Guardians to agree to some lesser claims. They would agree that Edward was their rightful overlord, but not that this applied to the whole country. Edward also took control of the principal royal castles in this interim, with the understanding that everything would be returned to a king, once Scotland had one.

They instituted what was called An t-Adhbhar Mòr (Scottish Gaelic, "The Great Cause"), a group of 104 men who, with Edward, would review all the claimants and choose the next king.

The strongest claims were from four men:

• John Balliol, Lord of Galloway
• Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale
• John Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings
• Floris V, Count of Holland

Tomorrow we will look over these four claimants, and announce a winner.

False Margaret

The child Margaret, Maid of Norway, was the only surviving heir of King Alexander III of Scotland. After some contention, she was finally recognized (with England's support) as the rightful queen. Unfortunately, while on the ship bringing her to Scotland from her home in Norway (her mother had married King Eric II of Norway) she fell ill. The ship put in at Orkney, and she died a few days later. The ship did not continue to Scotland where the Scottish nobles were waiting at Scone to hold a coronation; it went back to Norway, where her father had her buried. The was in September of 1290, when Margaret was only four years old.

In 1300, a ship from Lübeck, Germany, docked at Bergen, Norway, and a woman came ashore who claimed she was Margaret and accused several people of treason. Her claim was that she was sold by the wife of Baron Tore Håkonsson, who had been a royal escort on the ship to Scotland, and taken to Germany where she married.

The real Margaret's father, Eric II, had died the year before, and the current king, Erik's brother Haakon V, sent soldiers to arrest them. An investigation ensued.

Her claim was absurd. Eric had insisted on opening the coffin to identify Margaret when the body was returned to Norway. Also, the "False Margaret" was a woman about 40 years old, when the real Margaret would still have been a teenager! Still, people are always ready to believe a good conspiracy theory, and the story of False Margaret and her husband spread quickly. Some of the people willing to believe her may have simply been enemies of King Haakon, looking for a wedge to drive between him and Norwegians.

A year later, False Margaret was burned at the stake for treason; her husband was beheaded. The conspiracy did not die, however. Near the place where she was executed, a small church was built years later called Margaretaskirk ("Margaret's Church"), and a small local martyr cult formed. The church no longer exists, probably demolished during the Reformation.

Meanwhile, back in Scotland...

Maid of Norway, Queen of Scotland?

When King Alexander III of Scotland died unexpectedly, the only heir to the throne was his granddaughter in Norway, Margaret. He had named her his heir in 1286 after the deaths of his three children. She was three years old at the time, too young to travel to Scotland, so remained in Norway with her father, King Eric II. Her mother, Alexander's daughter Margaret, had died due to complications from childbirth, and her father was still in his teens.

Eric had little of his own royal authority, and was being managed by the bishop of Bergen, who also was shepherding Margaret's upbringing. In Scotland, six regents were chosen to manage the kingdom. They were also biding their time about the succession because of another wrinkle: before his death, Alexander's second wife, Yolande de Dreux, had become pregnant, and if she gave birth, that child would be a candidate in direct succession. In the meantime, there were two men who wanted to claim the throne: Robert Bruce (grandfather of Robert the Bruce), Lord of Annandale, and John Balliol, Lord of Galloway. Their claims were put aside by the Scottish Parliament

Yolande's child was stillborn. Robert Bruce rebelled, but was defeated. Months later, a representative from Norway arrived in Scotland to claim the kingdom for Margaret. The tensions in Scotland made Eric reluctant to send his daughter there. Instead, he sent envoys to Edward I of England to discuss the situation and Margaret's future. Edward's sister, Margaret of England, had been Alexander's first wife, and so Edward was great-uncle to the young Margaret. England also had a lot of interest in whomever was ruling Scotland.

In autumn of 1289, the six regents of Scotland, Robert Bruce, and English and Norwegians envoys met at Salisbury to discuss the situation. The resulting Treaty of Salisbury was signed on 1 November. It stated:

• Margaret was queen and heir to Scotland
• Edward would act on her behalf to ensure her authority
• Margaret would, in one year's time, go to Scotland, or England if Scotland was still contentious
• Once Edward was assured that Scotland was safe for her, Edward would deliver Margaret
• Edward had the right to choose her husband (although Eric could veto)

Edward also requested, and was granted, a papal dispensation that would allow Margaret to marry Edward of Caernarfon (Edward's son and therefore her cousin). Edward obviously intended his own son to become King of Scotland.

The next year, in August, a ship was prepared to take Margaret to Scotland. The bishop of Bergen and a royal advisor, Baron Tore Håkonsson, escorted her. The ship landed at Orkney on or about 23 September. It remained there, because Margaret had fallen ill on the journey. The symptoms matched motion sickness, but once on land, she remained ill, and died in the bishop's arms between 26 and 29 September, possibly from food poisoning. The waiting delegates at Scone never saw her; a coronation never happened. The body was returned to Bergen, and she was buried by Eric at the cathedral in Bergen.

She was the last in the direct line of succession from William the Lion, which kicked off no fewer than 13 claimants to the throne, including Eric of Norway. Then, about a decade later, a ship docked at Bergen and a woman claiming to be Margaret came ashore with a story to tell. Next time I'll tell you the story of False Margaret.

Alexander's Fatal Marriage

After the death of his first wife, Margaret of England, Alexander III did not marry again for a decade. There was no "need," since he had three children by Margaret, any of whom could inherit the throne. Margaret (born 1261) was married to King Eric II of Norway. Alexander (born 1264) was heir, and David (born 1272) was only three at the time of his mother's death, but was next in line. (Alexander himself had come to the throne in his minority, and a regency council managed things until he was 21.)

Fate had other plans for the children of Alexander and Margaret, however. David died young, in 1281. Margaret died giving birth to her only child, also named Margaret, in 1283 (she was only 22). Then Prince Alexander died in January 1284, a week after he turned 20, leaving a widow and no offspring.

Alexander senior had to act. Now in his 40s, a direct heir would mean marrying again and impregnating a wife, and quickly. In the meantime, he persuaded the Parliament of Scotland to recognize Margaret, his granddaughter in Norway, as his heir. This was in 1284. On 1 November 1285, he contracted marriage with Yolanda de Dreux, the 22-year-old daughter of the Count of Dreux (near the boundary between Normandy and the Île-de-France).

Alexander was far from celibate for the decade between becoming a widower and getting engaged to Yolanda. The Lanercost Chronicle (an online translation is available), produced at the Augustinian Lanercost Priory, covers the years 1201 to 1346 in Northern England and Scotland. Of Alexander's decade as a widower it says:

...he used never to forbear on account of season nor storm, nor for perils of flood or rocky cliffs, but would visit none too creditably nuns or matrons, virgins or widows as the fancy seized him, sometimes in disguise.

Satisfying his carnal desires despite dangerous weather was his undoing, since it seems from the above statement that the next (and last) anecdote of his life was likely the reason for what transpired (or he just wanted to surprise her). On 19 March 1286, the queen was at Kinghorn in Fife. The king was at Edinburgh with his royal advisors. The next day was the queen's birthday. Alexander decided to ride to Kinghorn, a distance of at least 30 miles with the need to cross the Firth of Forth. The March weather was bad, and his advisors tried to dissuade him, but he was determined. He crossed the Forth, and arrived at Inverkeithing. It was dark and stormy, and he insisted on not stopping despite the late hour but continuing the last 10 or so miles. Supposedly one of the burghers in town said:

"My lord, what are you doing out in such weather and darkness? How many times have I tried to persuade you that midnight traveling will do you no good?"

Alexander wouldn't listen, but set off into the dark with a small retinue. At some point he was separated from the retinue. The next morning, near Kinghorn, he was found with a broken neck. The likeliest assumption was that his horse lost its footing in the dark, he was thrown, and therefore never made it to Yolande.

...and that is how a three-year-old Norwegian girl became the Queen of Scotland. Let me tell you about her tomorrow.

Alexander's First Marriage

The marriage of King Alexander III of Scotland and Margaret of England did not start out as a happy one.  As the daughter of King Henry III of England, being married to the king of Scotland meant their offspring would be a significant potential link between the two countries.

The reality was that the groom was 10 years old and the bride was 11. He was managed by a regency council and she was taken to live in Edinburgh where she rarely saw him. Her letters home told of a lonely girl who did not like the gloomy climate and had no friends. Her requests to visit her family in England were refused by the Scottish authorities because they were afraid she would not want to return.

Margaret's mother, Eleanor of Provence, sent her personal physician to Scotland to investigate the situation. This was followed by Henry sending a delegation and demanding that she be treated better. At this point the couple had reached 14 years of age, and it was agreed that they could consummate their marriage and spend more time together as a couple. Henry declared that Alexander needed to reclaim authority from the regency council when he turned 21. He also stipulated that Alexander needed to show Margaret affection and allow Margaret to visit her family. This was in 1255, and in September of that year Henry and family were staying in Wark in Northumberland, where the young couple visited with them. Margaret was allowed to stay longer while Alexander returned to his duties.

Two years later, the king and queen of Scotland were captured by the family of Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, who had objected to Alexander's coronation and tried to take power early on before being defeated by loyalists. The demand of the captors was that all foreigners be expelled from Scotland. The regency council and Henry resolved that quickly.

The couple apparently developed a real bond, as some political marriages do, and Alexander enjoyed his time with his wife. They had three children; their daughter, Margaret, married King Eric II of Norway. Margaret died 26 February 1275.

I said in yesterday's post that marriage was the death of Alexander. He survived another 11 years after Margaret's death. It was his affection for his second wife that was his undoing. You will finally get that story next time.

Alexander III

Alexander III of Scotland (4 September 1241 - 19 March 1286) wanted to finally bring all of Scotland and surrounding islands into one unified country, following the dreams of his forebears. This would not happen right away, since he was only seven years old when his father, Alexander II, died and the son was crowned (the illustration is of the coronation from a much later medieval work). His marriage in Christmas Day 1251 to Margaret of England, daughter of King Henry III (she was 11), reinforced relations between Scotland and England. This gave him an ally if he needed military support in his quest.

He announced his intention when he turned 21 and assumed his rights from the regency council. Alexander sent an embassy to Norway and King Haakon IV, who rejected the Scottish claim and planned a military expedition to the islands, anticipating trouble and wanting to set up negotiations. Trouble there was, because Scottish nobles started raiding the Hebrides. In 1263, Haakon and a fleet of 120 ships—a pretty common "negotiating tactic" for Haakon—arrived in the Hebrides in August and met Alexander's forces, settling down to negotiate.

Alexander kept the talks going deliberately to reach a time on the calendar when the weather would make the sea more dangerous. An impatient Haakon attacked in October at the Battle of Largs, but a storm damaged several of his ships and the battle was indecisive. Haakon died not long after, however, and Alexander was able to assert control over the Hebrides. They were formally traded to Scotland by Haakon's successor, Magnus VI, for money in 1266 with the Treaty of Perth.

Alexander's marriage to Margaret is an interesting story. They were too young at the start to consummate the marriage, and Margaret's time in Scotland as a pre-teen was not pleasant. The marriage got better for them, however, until Margaret's death. Alexander re-married, and this second marriage was the death of him. I'll explain tomorrow.

Alexander and Unification of Scotland

King Alexander II of Scotland had a problem: there were strings of islands off his northern and western coasts that he'd like to think of as part of Scotland, but they were controlled by others. The Norse controlled the Shetlands and Orkneys, as well as the Isle of Mann and the Hebrides.

Alexander got caught up in English politics early on, but in the north there was trouble. Adam, the abbot of Melrose and bishop of Caithness, was killed by burning because of a tax of butter he imposed on locals. The Norse ruler, the jarl ("earl") of Orkney, Jon Haraldsson, had supposedly uttered the words "The devil take the bishop and his butter; you may roast him if you please!" Adam was burned at his home on 11 September 1222.

Although Caithness was on the mainland, it was part of the Kingdom of Norway. When word got out of the death and Haraldsson's comment, the blame was put on the jarl. Alexander took an army north, intending to use the death of a mainland subject to assert control over this mainland part of the Orkney kingdom. He hanged most of the farmers and mutilated the rest. Haraldsson swore oaths to his innocence, so Alexander did not pursue further vengeance—but he kept the mainland.

Alexander also brought Argyll (including the Inner Hebrides) under his rule, and ended a revolt in Galloway in 1235. He tried to bring the Isle of Mann and Outer Hebrides into the fold, but he died while planning a military venture there.

That would wait until success by his son, Alexander III. This was not a son by his first wife, King John's daughter, Joan of England. Joan died in 1238, while she was only 27, having not produced an heir. Alexander then married Marie de Coucy (incidentally angering Henry III, because it created a Scottish-French alliance). When their son, Alexander III, turned 21, he pledged to fulfill his father's wish of bringing the western isles into Scotland proper.

How that turned out is a story for tomorrow.

Alexander II of Scotland

Alexander II came to the throne of Scotland at the age of 16 with two missions in mind: ensure Scotland's unity by subduing attempts by its various areas to restore their independence, and to restore Scotland's own independence from England.

He was born on 24 August 1198 to William I and Ermengarde de Beaumont, inheriting his father's red hair and ambition. The first trouble came one month after his coronation in December 1214, when the MacWilliams and MacHeath clans revolted. The MacWilliams were descended from Duncan I, and had been excluded from succession by David I, who adopted the English tradition of primogeniture. Their attempt to take the crown back was quickly put down by loyalists.

Alexander had been knighted a year earlier by King John; the Treaty of Falaise required that he spend time in his youth being educated at the English court. He and his status were known to the English barons; when they rebelled against John in 1215, Alexander joined them. John retaliated by sacking Berwick-on-Tweed in Northumberland, where the king had a mint. When the Magna Carta was drawn up for John to sign, reducing his power and granting more autonomy to the barons, Clause 59 was added for Scotland:

We will deal with Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and hostages, and his liberties and right, in the same manner in which we deal with our other barons of England, unless it should be otherwise under the charters which we have from his father William, former king of Scots. And this will be by judgment of his peers in our court.

John later rejected the document he had been forced to sign, and took his army north to punish Scotland and “hunt the red fox-cub from his lairs”; he had to return south quickly, however, when he learned that the barons had invited French King Louis VIII to accept their homage and take John's place. (They gave up on Louis when John died and the child Henry III became king with a regency council.)

With Henry's regency supporting Magna Carta, Alexander could turn his attention from his relationship with England to his relations with his own neighbors, who until recently were independent until William I subdued them. Alexander also had parts of "his" realm ruled by the Norse and Norway. How he dealt with them is a story for tomorrow.

William Versus England

Although William I of Scotland fell out of favor with King Henry II of England, Henry did restore all the castles he had occupied when William sided with Henry's sons in open rebellion. He also provided William a bride, Ermengarde de Beaumont. William never regained good relations with England, however, and never stopped trying to gain Northumbria for himself.

He made a non-hostile attempt to gain Northumbria in 1194, when Henry's son Richard Lionheart was king. He offered £9,750 to buy it, which was tempting for Richard. Richard did not care so much for England as he did for two other things: his territory on the continent, and fighting; the money would finance the Third Crusade. William wanted possession of the castles in Northumbria as well, and Richard was not going to give away a potential defensive need.

William focused on uniting Scotland, bringing the formerly independent Galloway under his control, stopping insurrections in Moray and Inverness, and bringing Caithness and Sutherland into line with his rule. William's own banner, which showed a red lion (long after his death he was called "William the Lion") became the Royal Banner of Scotland.

As he aged, however, England in the form of Richard's younger brother, John, thought it a good time to increase control over Scotland. He took an army north, but was bought off with sums of money from William, as well as a promise that William's daughters would marry English nobles. This would give the offspring of those marriages a greater English presence in Scotland. William's son and heir, Alexander, was betrothed to John's daughter Joan. It is believed that Ermengarde managed these negotiations on behalf of her aging husband.

In his lifetime, William managed to not only unite parts of Scotland; he built new settlements, clarified criminal law, and expanded the duties of justices and sheriffs along English lines, a reform movement started by his grandfather, David I. Despite his futile attempts to expand his borders southward, he managed to strengthen Scotland, leaving behind a stronger and more unified country.

He died in 1214 at the age of 72 and was buried in Arbroath Abbey, which he founded in 1178. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander II, who learned nothing from his father's travails about trying to get along with England. But let's save that story for next time.

Ermengarde de Beaumont

Henry II of England had such a hold over William I of Scotland (after William joined in the rebellion of Henry's sons against their father) that he put his knights in control of several Scottish castles, forced William to pay him £26,000, and even chose William's bride. This was all done by the Treaty of Falaise that William was forced to sign to get out of captivity.

The bride-to-be was not inconsequential. Henry chose Ermengarde de Beaumont, a great-granddaughter of Henry I. More immediately, she was the daughter of a viscount, Richard I of Beaumont-le-Vicomte. One chronicler, Walter Bower, described her as "an extraordinary woman, gifted with a charming and witty eloquence." She was 16 when she married William at Woodstock Palace.

William objected (uselessly), feeling that a king should have a bride of higher status, but Henry was feeling generous: he offered to pay all wedding expenses and to return to William the castles he had taken due to the Treaty of Falaise. The Castle of Edinburgh was considered Ermengarde's dowry.

William accepted the bride under these conditions (again, he had little choice), but he may not have accepted his "marital duties." He had fathered illegitimate children by at least two women, but children by Ermengarde did not come until at least seven years after the wedding. Perhaps it was only his concern to produce legitimate heirs that prompted him to finally treat Ermengarde as his wife.

Ermengarde was not just a footnote to William's reign, however. She supposedly helped a royal chaplain obtain a bishopric after she (and the king) accepted a bribe. In 1209, she mediated on behalf of her aging husband (he was 67) with King John. She is said to have taken over some of his duties in his later years, and went with William to England in 1212 to secure from King John the succession of their son Alexander.

After William's death in 1214, she was described as being distraught. She spent her final years founding the Cistercian Balmerino Abbey in Fife, where she was buried after her death in 1234.

So...what was the mediation in 1209 with King John, you ask? Well, despite previous failures, William never gave up his (and his ancestors') dream of expanding Scotland to include Northumbria. Let me tell you tomorrow how that went.

William the Lion

The title of the second longest reign in Scottish history goes to William I (c.1142 - 1214). Only James VI was longer (of course that was helped by the fact he became king when he was one year old). His father, Henry Earl of Huntingdon, was the son of King David I and would have followed him, but Henry died while David was still king, making Henry's son Malcolm the heir presumptive. David died in 1153, making the 12-year-old Malcolm king and Malcolm's brother William heir presumptive. When Malcolm died at 24 in 1165, William (then 23) ascended to the throne on Christmas Eve.

William was physically imposing and red-maned, earning the nickname "The Lion." Alternatively, he was also called in Gaelic Uilliam Garbh which means "William the Rough." His headstrong manner led him to bite off more than he could chew when dealing with England, specifically regarding the Earldom of Northumbria.

Northumbria had been granted to William's father Henry by England as part of negotiations with Scotland: King David had invaded it, trying to claim the northernmost parts of England to expand Scotland's borders. Controlling it was another matter, however, since England at the time was ruled by the powerful and clever Henry II. William spent time after his coronation at Henry's court—England had always been supportive of Scotland's kings—but they quarreled, and William made a treaty with France in 1168. A few years later, William and France supported the rebellion against Henry II by his sons.

During one engagement, the Battle of Alnwick in 1174, William's bravado led him to charge against the English, outpacing his own soldiers, shouting "Now we shall see which of us are good knights!" He was captured by Ranulph de Glanvill, an event I mentioned here that led to Glanvill's promotion.

The Lion was put in chains and taken to Falaise in Normandy, Henry sent his troops into Scotland. If William wanted his freedom and Scotland back, he would have to acknowledge Henry as his overlord and pay, not a ransom, but the cost of Henry's troops holding Scotland. Henry computed that at £26,000. Moreover, the Church of Scotland had to submit to the will of the Church of England. It also transferred the castles of Roxburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling over to English soldiers. William would have to request permission from Henry to muster soldiers for affairs as simple as putting down local uprisings.

(And that was a problem for William, because Scotland was not happy that they were not independent, and Galloway particularly took advantage of William's weakened position to cause trouble.)

William had little choice. He signed the Treaty of Falaise, and the formerly "friendly understanding" between two realms on the isle of Great Britain became a legal obligation for the next 15 years. Henry even chose William's bride, over William's objections. In fact, let's talk about Ermengarde de Beaumont tomorrow, and see what the result was.

The Roman de Fergus

Although you wouldn't suspect that the life of Fergus of Galloway (who died in 1161) would lend itself to the Arthurian Romance cycle, the tendency to latch onto an old name and use it in creative ways was common in the Middle Ages. What was even more creative was that the story seems to be a parody of Arthurian romance.

The Roman de Fergus, or "Story of Fergus" is written in Old French by someone who claims to be Guillaume le Clerc (William the Clerk). A recent idea links the author to a royal clerk, William of Malveisin, who was born in France but became a royal clerk in Scotland. The name and the language make him a likely candidate to write the Roman to entertain the court of William I of Scotland, who would not mind the implied mockery of a lord of Galloway.

Unlike most Arthurian Romance, this Roman has very specific and accurate references to geography. In it, Fergus is a farmer, son of a lord who can only afford a fortress made of wood, not stone. Fergus observes Arthur and his knights on a stag hunt near Carlisle, and is inspired by them to become a knight himself.

He gets a suit of armor from his father, and heads to Arthur's court in Carlisle. Along the way he kills two bandits whose heads he presents to Arthur. Kay the Seneschal mocks him and challenges him to prove his worth by defeating the Black Knight. He is knighted by Arthur and receives a sword from Perceval.

At Liddel Castle along the way, he falls in love with Galiene, and promises to return to her when he has defeated the Black Knight. After doing so, he returns, but Galiene is missing. He searches for a year, and encounters a dwarf who says he will find her if he can retrieve a shield from a hag (who is also a dragon) in Dunnottar Castle. This he does, killing a few more people with whom he argues, and returns to find Galiene is now the ruler of Lothian. Unfortunately, she is in Roxburgh, besieged by a neighboring king. Heading to Roxburgh, he is attacked at Melrose by the husband of the hag he killed at Dunnottar.

Fergus eventually saves Roxburgh, and he and Galiene are reunited at a tournament held by Arthur in which Fergus defeats every one of Arthur's knights.

The Roman de Fergus was entertaining, but not considered great medieval literature except that it was an interesting parody of the Perceval-Grail story. Then something odd happened: in the mid-13th century it was translated into Middle Dutch...poorly. The first half was done well, but a second translator took over who was not as good at Old French. Perhaps the second translator just wanted to re-work the story. The resulting Roman de Ferguut is far better known as a Dutch classic than the original is known in Scotland. It even earned an English translation in 2000.

Although Fergus becomes a hero, did his humble origin qualify as mockery, and was this story a playful pursuit by William the Clerk, or did his employer William I of Scotland request it? Let's see why King William might have wanted to poke a little fun at Galloway next time.

Fergus versus Scotland

(The illustration is a sketch of Cruggleton Castle, an important Galloway fortress which now is more accurately called a pile of rock than even an "historical ruin.")

The Lords of Galloway in southwestern Scotland seem to have looked more toward the Isles of the west and north coasts as friends and allies more than the inland kingdoms. Such seems to have been the case with Fergus of Galloway, who married his daughter Affraic to Óláfr Guðrøðarson, King of the Isles. Óláfr had seen a vicious power struggle among his brothers when their father died, and (like David I of Scotland) was taken in by Henry I of England. Sometime between 1112 and 1115, Henry established Óláfr on the throne of the Isles  (which encompassed the Isle of Mann, the Inner Hebrides, the Outer Hebrides, the Orkneys, and the Shetlands).

Óláfr was assassinated by three nephews, and his and Affraic's son, Guðrøðr Óláfsson, might have expected help from Guðrøðr's grandfather Fergus, but before Fergus could send any help, Galloway was attacked. Fergus had a good relationship with David I, supporting him in the (disastrous for them) Battle of the Standard, but David's grandson, Malcolm IV (David's son and Malcolm's father, Henry Earl of Huntingdon had died from illness), did not feel the same. Malcolm was born in 1141, and so was only 19 when he launched three campaigns against Galloway. Had Fergus been encroaching on Scottish territory, or did Malcolm simply want to expand? We'll never know.

Fergus was forced to retire to Holyrood Abbey in Edinburgh, founded in 1128 by David I and the recipient of largesse from Fergus himself in happier days. Fergus died 12 May 1161, and was interred at Holyrood. His lordship was divided between his sons, Uhtred and Gille Brigte (after they fought each other, as often happens among royal siblings).

As I mentioned yesterday, Fergus "lived on" in a different way. His name seems to have become unexpectedly attached to the Arthurian Cycle. Even more unexpectedly, a bad translation of it is considered a Dutch classic. Tomorrow we take a literary trip into the Roman de Fergus.

Fergus of Galloway

In yesterday's post about St. Ninian, I suggested that the biography of him written 700 years later by Aelred of Rievaulx may have had a political origin. To explain that, we have to talk about Fergus of Galloway.

An 1136 charter by King David I of Scotland includes as a witness Fergus of Galloway. This is our first reference to him. In the early Middle Ages, Galloway would have been a "sub-kingdom" in southwest Scotland, and a king of Scotland like David would have been seen as a "first among equals" like the high-king in Ireland. Over time, these sub-kings were designated as hereditary lords. The dynasty of Fergus lasted from his time until 1234.

Digging into contemporary documents, it appears that he may have been married to an illegitimate daughter of King Henry I of England, Elizabeth Fitzroy. (By some counts, Henry had two dozen illegitimate children.) Fergus had three children: Uhtred, Gilla Brigte, and a daughter Affraic. The chronicler Roger de Hoveden refers to Uhtred as a cousin of Henry's son Henry II. Fergus' second son, Gilla Brigte, had a son who was referred to as a kinsman of Henry II and his son, King John. In other marriage news, Fergus married Affraic to with Óláfr Guðrøðarson, King of the Isles (the Isle of Mann, the Inner Hebrides, the Outer Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetlands). Their son, Guðrøðr Óláfsson, became King of Dublin and the Isles. A 12th-century monk and chronicler, Robert de Torigni, claimed that Guðrøðr was related to Henry II.

The Fergus dynasty was very supportive of Augustinians, Benedictines, Cistercians, and Premonstratensians (a strict order founded by a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux, Norbert of Xanten). In one case, records state that Fergus founded a Premonstratensian house at Whithorn. Supposedly, St. Ninian had started the diocese of Whithorn, but it had lapsed, to be revived in 1128. Other records suggest that Fergus founded an Augustinian house that was later converted to Premonstratensian by Christian, the second bishop of the revived Whithorn diocese.

Fergus' extensive support of monasteries and orders has caused some head-scratching to determine the cause. Did he simply want to mirror what other, more-powerful lords did in their realms? Or was there some other underlying purpose. As it turns out, the greatest atrocities during the Battle of the Standard in 1138 were (according to chroniclers) committed by Gallovidian soldiers supporting King David's attempt to capture more territory. It seems likely that Fergus's religious generosity may have had a penitential flavor. Is it possible that the Life of Saint Ninian by Aelred of Rievaulx was a royal request in exchange for a gift to Rievaulx Abbey? Royal patronage is not an unlikely answer. The fact that a biography of a saint who originally founded Whithorn and performed miracles would bring attention and fame to a location within the bounds of Fergus' realm was simply a happy bonus.

For all his publicly expressed piety, however Fergus did not have a happy end. I'll tell you about that tomorrow. The next time after that, however, we will see how the facts of your life don't matter if someone decides afterward that you'd make a good story. See you soon.

St. Ninian, Apostle to the Southern Picts

Aelred of Rievaulx (c.1110-1167) wrote several works, including biographies, one of which was about a saint from several centuries earlier, Ninian. The Vita Sancti Niniani ("Life of Saint Ninian") exists in two early manuscripts.

Our first reference in history to Ninian (c.360 - c.432), is from the 8th century when Bede mentions him as the first Christian missionary among the Picts in Scotland. Supposedly he was a son of a Briton chieftain who made a pilgrimage to Rome, was made a bishop, and then headed home through Gaul where he met Martin of Tours. Modern scholarship supports the idea that in 397 he built a whitewashed stone church at what is now called Whithorn ("White House"; in Latin it was called Candida Casa) in Caledonia, which became a leading Anglo-Saxon monastic center.

He was considered a miracle worker. In one instance, sitting to dine with the monks, he remarked that there were no vegetables on the table and called the monk in charge of the gardens, who informed Ninian that he had just planted the garden that morning and nothing had yet grown. Ninian sent him to the garden, whereupon the monk found that there were plenty of full-grown leeks and other herbs. In another anecdote, the traveling Ninian blesses a herd of cows and draws a circle in the field with his staff to keep them contained and safe for the night. Thieves who attempt to steal the herd find their leader gored to death by the bull and the rest made mad. Ninian in the morning prays to God to restore the dead man and restore the others. Ninian's prayer is successful.

St. Patrick, whose missionary work followed Ninian's by a few decades, refers to the Picts in his "Letter to Coroticus" as "apostates" (people who revert from their faith), suggesting that Ninian's seeds did not take permanent root:

Soldiers whom I no longer call my fellow citizens, or citizens of the Roman saints, but fellow citizens of the devils, in consequence of their evil deeds; who live in death, after the hostile rite of the barbarians; associates of the Scots and Apostate Picts; desirous of glutting themselves with the blood of innocent Christians, multitudes of whom I have begotten in God and confirmed in Christ.

The northern Picts were converted by St. Columba, and Christianity was still strong there. The "apostate" label would have to apply to the southern Picts, so Patrick clearly was aware that there had been missionary attempts there before him. 

He may have got the name wrong, however. Archeology and anthropology suggest that the story of Ninian by Bede and others may actually be the story of Finnian of Clonard, or Finbarr of Cork, or Finnian of Movilla. The fact that Ninian is referred to as Ringan in Scotland and Trynnian in Northern England also suggests that exact identification of a bishop who built the first stone church at Whithorn has its difficulties. Aelred's source for the name "Ninian" is actually a scribal error from "Ninia," which (according to one modern scholar) was itself a scribal error from early records of St. Finnian (of Movilla) spelled Uinniau.

You can read Aelred's Life of Ninian in English here. Ninian's image appears in stained glass in a church in Galloway (see illustration).

But why was Aelred so interested in this obscure saint from seven centuries earlier? During Aelred's life, Whithorn was revived as a bishopric. Did he have a reason to draw attention to the newly resurrected bishopric? It may have been a political favor. I'll explain that tomorrow.

Aelred's Later Life

Aelred of Rievaulx took a successful abbey and made it even more grand (although the illustration will show that its fortunes have fallen somewhat, thanks of course to Henry VIII).

Rievaulx was intended at its founding by Bernard of Clairvaux to spread Cistercian reform ideas across the north. By the time Aelred became abbot (1147), the abbey was only about 15 years old, but already had five daughter houses in England and Scotland. Residents had to accept a life of physical deprivation in exchange for spiritual rewards. Aelred wrote a guide for novices called Speculum caritatis ("The Mirror of Charity"), warning them:

Our food is scanty, our garments rough; our drink is from the stream and our sleep upon our book. Under our tired limbs there is a hard mat; when sleep is sweetest we must rise at a bell’s bidding … self-will has no scope; there is no moment for idleness or dissipation … Everywhere peace, everywhere serenity, and a marvellous freedom from the tumult of the world.

Despite these conditions, by the end of Aelred's term as abbot, the abbey had doubled to 140 monks and 500 lay brothers.

He wrote extensively. He wrote biographies of King David I of Scotland, Saint Ninian (mentioned here), and Edward the Confessor. He also produced treatises on the life of Jesus at the age of 12, anchoresses, spiritual friendship, and other topics. There are several sermons that have survived, and histories of Genealogia regum Anglorum ("Genealogy of the Kings of the English"), Relatio de Standardo ("On the Account of the Standard"), and De bello standardii ("On the Battle of the Standard"), about the Battle of the Standard, and a couple on miracles, specially those connected to the Church of Hexham where Aelred was born. His treatise De spirituali amicitiâ ("Spiritual Friendship"), has prompted modern scholars to suggest that he was homosexual.

His job as abbot was to travel to the daughter houses regularly, and visit the general chapter of the Cistercians at Cîteaux in France once each year. This was difficult for him as he got older, especially since it appears he suffered from arthritis and kidney stones. His biographer, the Rievaulx monk Walter Daniel, reports that in 1157 he got permission to sleep in the infirmary rather than his own cell. He died in the winter of 1166-67, aged about 57. He is venerated as a saint by both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. He is considered the patron saint of bladder problems; more recently LGBTQ Christians have embraced him as well.

Was there something particular about St. Ninian that made Aelred feel motivated to write his biography? And was Ninian even his name? Let's figure that out next time.

Aelred of Rievaulx

In 1134, a man in his 20s entered Rievaulx, a Cistercian abbey in North Yorkshire. A sentence like this has been written many times in this blog, but it usually refers to a younger son of a family who had no prospects in life other than the church. In this case, however, the young man had already had a significant career that could have lasted his whole lifetime, and he gave it all up. A monk at Rievaulx who knew Aelred, Walter Daniel, wrote a biography of Aelred, giving us more biographical detail than we usually have on anyone from this time period.

Aelred of Rievaulx was born c.1110 in Hexham in Northumberland, one of three sons of a priest named Eilaf. (Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury's prohibition against clerical marriage was very recent.) Although priests still had sons, a 1095 order from the Council of Claremont forbade the sons of priests to become priests (the idea was to prevent inheritance of benefices, since a bishop or higher-ranking prelate should decide where a benefice goes when a priest dies).

He would have been educated at the cathedral school at Durham. We know he spent several years at the court of King David I of Scotland, and was there long enough to rise to the title echonomus, a word related to "economy" and indicating that he was a steward or seneschal, possible the steward of the king's household, managing all of the "below stairs" members of staff. While in this role, Walter Daniel tells us of an incident where a knight harassed him and used a degrading sexual slur. Daniel uses this anecdote as an example of Aelred's capacity for forgiveness, but the incident seems to have made Aelred depressed and disillusioned with court life.

On a mission for David to Thurstan, Archbishop of York, Aelred learned of Rievaulx Abbey, founded only two years earlier by monks from Clairvaux Abbey in northeastern France. Aelred realized that a religious life was his true calling, and joined Rievaulx. A few years later he was part of a delegation to Rome to see Pope Innocent II. The purpose was to present northern England delegates who opposed the election of Henry de Sully as Archbishop of York; although de Sully was an abbot, his main qualification was that he was a nephew of Stephen of Blois, whose seizing of the throne of England caused The Anarchy. Their delegation was successful.

After Rome, Aelred in 1143 was made abbot of Revesby Abbey in Lincolnshire, founded that year as a daughter house of Rievaulx. Not long after, in 1147, he was made abbot of Rievaulx itself. According to his biographer, Aelred "doubled everything" at Rievaulx. The buildings, the members, the resources—all increased under Aelred at what was an already flourishing complex.

Tomorrow, we'll talk more about Aelred's leadership and authorship. See you then.

David and Scotland

King David's rule over Scotland was entwined with his relationship with England. When England experienced the constitutional crisis and civil war called The Anarchy (see Parts 1, 2, and 3), David got involved. One reason was that he wanted to support the chosen heir of his friend and brother-in-law, King Henry I. Henry wanted his daughter Matilda to rule after him, but a cousin, Stephen of Blois, was able to take the throne because Matilda was on the continent. (Coincidentally, Henry had done something similar.)

Another "benefit" of supporting Matilda over Stephen was that it gave David an excuse to invade England, incidentally capturing territory along the way and expanding Scotland's borders. David brought an army into England in December 1135, right after Stephen was crowned. David quickly occupied the castles of Carlisle, Wark, Alnwick, Norham, and Newcastle. Stephen responded, but wanted to avoid a battle (possibly because he knew he would need his army to deal with the part of the country that supported Matilda), and a truce was made that left David with Carlisle and gave his son Henry the title Earl of Huntingdon and the promise of Earl of Northumberland (if that earldom was ever re-created).

David attacked again in the spring of 1137, but again a truce was made that lasted the year. In January 1138, David again invaded, demanding that his son receive Northumberland, and in July he was defeated at the Battle of the Standard. Negotiations later that year resulted in affirming David's son as Earl of Huntingdon and Northumberland, and David being allowed to keep Carlisle (seen here in an 1829 engraving) and Cumberland. This was considered a success for Scotland. Cumberland gave him access to silver mines in Alston, resulting in Scotland's first silver coinage.

He also had success with the Scottish Church. The 12th century monk Aelred of Rievaulx wrote:

...he found three or four bishops in the whole Scottish kingdom, and the others wavering without a pastor to the loss of both morals and property; when he died, he left nine, both of ancient bishoprics which he himself restored, and new ones which he erected.

Although modern scholars say there is no evidence of David increasing the church as reported, perhaps his contemporary chronicler was a little more in tune with the events. David is also given credit for establishing parties, we do know that parishes existed long before he came to power.

And, of course, he had the problem seen in recent posts of the debate between archbishops and secular lords. David did not want his bishops professing obedience to the Archbishop of York, Thurstan in this case, and that created problems. The popes supported the archbishop.

Then the worst came: his son and heir Henry died, and David was old and did not have long to live. He named as his heir Henry's son, Malcolm IV. David died 24 May 1153, aged about 70.

I want to turn now to one of the sources of Scottish history, the aforementioned Aelred of Rievaulx, an Englishman who spent significant time at David's court before becoming a Cistercian. See you next time.