Ubertino of Casale

St. Francis of Assisi insisted on personal poverty for members of the order he founded, the idea that one should have no possessions and live with as little as possible. Over time, some members of the Franciscans felt that this restriction was not being observed the way it should, and they started practicing the extreme poverty exemplified by Francis himself.

To be fair, the Franciscans began caring for the poor and the sick, and that was not something you could do unless you had possessions: a roof and paraphernalia for helping sick and hurt people. So the Franciscans evolved into two groups: The Zelanti (from the word "zeal"), also called the Spirituals, and the Relaxati, later called the Conventuals.

The Spirituals' extreme views caused them to criticize the growing wealth of the Church and the lavish lifestyle of its top prelates. This put the Fraticelli on a collision course with the papacy, fictionalized by Umberto Eco in the book The Name of the Rose. In the book (and movie), we meet one of the Spirituals, Ubertino de Casale (seen above worshipping Christ).

Ubertino joined the Franciscans in 1273 as a 14-year-old. After a few years he was sent to Paris to study, but returned to Italy when he was done. He traveled to Rome, visiting Christian sanctuaries and sites, then settled in Tuscany. Considered very smart though eccentric, he soon became leader of the Tuscany Spirituals.

The Tuscany Spirituals were so extreme that they started to publicly claim that Popes Gregory IX and Nicholas III (who had been a friend of Francis) were heretics for not interpreting the Franciscan rule of poverty properly, and allowing moderation. Gregory had stated that gifts given to the Franciscans were in fact gifts to the pope, and the Franciscans were just using them temporarily. Pope Innocent IV allowed the Franciscans to appoint an outsider who would be in charge of buying, selling, and managing goods, like a quartermaster. The Spirituals did not approve of this way of trying to weasel out of Francis' original rule.

Of course, Ubertino was one of the loudest critics of the papacy and his fellow Franciscans, and the authorities decided he needed to be dealt with. We'll talk about that tomorrow.

The Council of Vienne

The Council of Vienne (1311-1312; seen here in a painting in 1880 by Paul Lacroix) has been mentioned before, and produced some positive decisions, but its goal of church reform led to the condemnation of certain groups who did not seem to deserve condemnation.

One of its condemnations was of the Beguines and Beghards. These were groups of (respectively) laywomen and laymen who created communities of folk who wanted to live simple lives devoted to prayer and good works. Their lifestyle mirrored that of monks, but they took no formal vows. The difficulty for the Council was that these groups were accused of believing that they could achieve their own salvation independent of the guidance of religion (or the authority of the Church) by living their lives simply. Pope Clement V produced an encyclical from the Council condemning the groups as heretical. In some areas, Beguines and Beghards were actually burned.

Another conflict between formal and informal spirituality was sparked by Ubertino de Casale (a significant figure in the book and movie The Name of the Rose). He complained that a stricter adherence to the Rule of St. Francis was necessary, especially regarding the vow of poverty. Those following this stricter rule were called Spirituals, and they were opposed by the leaders of the Franciscans, who were straying away from the vow of strict poverty. The outcome of the Council was a bull from Clement left decisions of behavior up to the individual abbots.

The Council embedded in canon law that priests must not marry, and laid out punishments for adultery, concubinage, fornication, incest, and rape.

A crusade was discussed, because the King of Aragon wanted to attack the Muslim city of Granada. Philip IV of France on 3 April 1312 (the Council ended the following May) vowed to go on Crusade within the next six years, but Clement said he had to start within the next year and Philip must lead it. A tithe was begun to raise funds for the Crusade, but Phillip died in November 1314.

One of the biggest decisions to come out of the Council was regarding the Knights Templar. When Clement called the Council by a bull in August 1308, saying the Templars would have to answer for their actions in a new ecumenical council in 1310 (it was obviously delayed). This bull created papal commissions to investigate the Templars and take depositions that would be brought to the pope.

The fate of the Templars has been discussed many time in this blog, but Ubertino de Casale has not, so tomorrow we'll look at his life and impact on the Franciscans.

Who Were the Beghards?

After the successful spread in the Low Countries of the simplified Christian lifestyle of laywomen called Beguines, a similar trend appeared for laymen. Groups like these did not take any formal vows or join monasteries. Rather, they chose to live simply and do good works, often in communities. One of the laymen groups was called the Beghards.

Beghards were often older, working men who were not wealthy to begin with, or who found themselves in a situation in life where they might have difficulty supporting themselves. They owned no property and agreed that the money in the community would be kept together for community needs. Members shared a living space. (The illustration is of a former beguinage in a borough of Stuttgart.) They chose leaders to guide them.

The origin of the terms "Beguine" and "Beghard" are unknown. They likely have nothing to do with begging, and are supposed to come from the Flemish beghen, "to pray."

Synods in 1259, in 1261, and in 1282 produced laws limiting their growth. They were condemned strongly by the Council of Vienne in 1312, but Pope John XXII overrode the Council. What was so bad about Beguines and Beghards? Because they were not educated as clergy, their practices and beliefs could develop into ideas opposed to official doctrine. Also, formal religious groups that took vows were offended by the idea that a random group could attain "religious status" without committing themselves by taking vows. In fact, Beghards and Beguines could leave their community at any time.

Beguines and Beghards started to wane before the Middle Ages were over, but some communities lingered; there were still 34 communities in 1734 in Flanders. Pope Gregory XVI referred to them in a 1832 encyclical. The world's "last Beguine" died in 2013.

The Council of Vienne tackled church reform, and attacked another religious group, which I'll tell you about next time.

Marie of Oignies

The Beguines were a 12th century movement in which ordinary Christian women decided to live a more simple and pious life, rather than formally join a monastery or abbey or the priesthood. The Cardinal Jacques de Vitry was intrigued by this group, and wrote a biography of one of them, to whom he was her confessor. His fascination with her life and belief in her piety motivated him to try to persuade the pope to formally approve their movement.

That woman was Marie of Oignies. She was born to a wealthy Belgian family in 1176. While still young, she saw the contrast between the fine clothes provided by her parents and the New Testament comments against excess, in 1 Timothy 2:9, for example:

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

Her parents were not happy with her attitude, but she chose solitude and prayer over playing with other children. She was attracted to the life of the Cistercians she saw. When she was married at the age of 14, the independence from her parents allowed her to make more choices of her own concerning how she conducted her life. She started to mortify herself with denying herself sleep, sleeping on wooden planks, and wearing a tight rope around her waist.

She convinced her husband, Jean de Neville, to take a vow of chastity so that she could preserve her body as God's handmaiden. She claimed to have a vision in which promised her spiritual compensation for a childless marriage. She also convinced him to do good works along with her, and they began to care for lepers.

Their example caused others to live near them and start conducting their lives according to rules established by St. Francis. Jacques de Vitry came in 1208 to investigate the growing reputation of her community. His hagiography of her tells us that she was constantly praying, no matter what she was engaged in.

Miracles were attributed to her. She offered a hair from her head to an ill man, who was cured. She predicted de Vitry would receive a summons to cross the sea, which happened. While traveling with companions, a severe storm approached. Marie prayed to John the Evangelist, and the storm raged around them but they remained dry.

As another sign of her holiness, she claimed she could detect whether a Host was consecrated, and she claimed the unconsecrated Host made her ill. She swore to only consume consecrated Hosts. When she died, her body was found to be severely emaciated.

She died on 23 June 1213, and is venerated in the Catholic Church as protection for women in labor.

The Beguines were a female movement. Was there a corresponding male movement? There was, and tomorrow we'll talk about the Beghards.

Hair and Religion, Part 3

I wrote two parts about this topic previously (Part 1 and Part 2), but the research for yesterday's post on just plain hair led me to believe it is time for a follow-up, especially since it will include some of the people we have previously discussed.

Hair (as opposed to flesh) did not decay, and on the occasion when a saint was exhumed for the sake of retrieving relics (or simply proving sainthood by the belief that incorruptibility of the corpse was a divine sign) finding a good head of hair was proof and a relief. Locks of hair counted as relics.* The earliest reference to this was in the 4th century, when an early martyr named Nazarius was disinterred and discovered to have a full head of hair. 

The first Christian king of Norway, Olaf Tryggvason, was a cruel man to those who would not accept forced conversion, but a year after he died he was exhumed and found to have hair and nails that had continued growing "as much as when he had been alive." (Presumably, this means twice as long as when he died.)** His beard and hair were trimmed and put into a fire to see if they were suitable as relics. When the hair did not burn, the presiding bishop declared Olaf a saint.

Hildegarde of Bingen was a cloistered nun who was recognized in her life as very wise and holy. A single hair of hers was preserved in a silk container the altar at her abbey. A fire that swept through the church left her relic unharmed. This hair had other powers: when a woman who was possessed by a demon had the hair brought before her, the demon fled.

Jacques de Vitry wrote a biography of a Beguine, Marie d'Oignies. During her life, a man whose illness could not be diagnised after seeing many doctors was cured by the touch of Marie's hair.

The illustration is of the Talisman of Charlemagne, an amulet carried by him that supposedly carried a hair of the Virgin Mary.

Jacques de Vitry left behind several writings, but only the one biography. What was it about Marie d'Oignies that made her a special interest? He was fascinated by the "holy power" of the Beguines, and Marie was a singular member. We'll take a look at what made her special next time.

*Teeth and fingernails were also desirable, since they could be taken without desecrating the body; in later centuries, of course, the entire skeleton became fair game.

**And you know that hair and nails do not continue to grow after death: the skin shrinks and pulls back, revealing more hair/nail from under the surface.

Hair & Baldness

Let's talk about hair in the Middle Ages; not hairstyles, but hair itself.

Hairstyles were important, of course, because there was cultural significance to them. A tonsure shaved the head of a monk to resemble the Crown of Thorns pressed onto Jesus prior to the Crucifixion. (Although we believe some tonsure patterns were different.) "Hair and Religion" was a topic that produced a Part 1 and Part 2. A lock of hair from a saint was just as good a relic as a bone, and for a long time was the only thing allowed to be taken from the body. And it was felt that a shaved head disqualified a man to be king. Charles the Bald was probably not bald since he was qualified to be emperor, and the nickname was likely a reference to something else.

But what did the Middle Ages feel about hair itself? Well, they liked it, and if you were a man who didn't have it on the top of your head, you'd probably want to find a way to get it back. They therefore looked for remedies for baldness. One Irish manuscript authored by Connla Mac an Leagha assembled 920 remedies arranged from the head to the feet. Several are remedies for hair-related conditions (I'll skip over the lice and mites solutions).

Connla said hair could be encouraged to grow with a poultice of crushed chickweed and goat's dung. No details are included regarding proper preparation—which suggests that the readers would be familiar with it and did not need instructions—just that it needs to be applied and then held in place with a cloth. (My personal assumption is that no one in his right mind would smear goat dung on his head, and therefore the uselessness of Connla's remedy would never be discovered.)

Another slightly more elaborate hair-loss cure also included dung (I see a pattern forming). Meadowsweet, plantain, sheep's fat, and fresh butter were mixed with sheep's dung. (Must have fresh; wouldn't want it to spoil and stink up the sheep's dung.) These were to be cooked together and then strained (and presumably cooled) and applied to the scalp. It probably became a semi-solid thanks to the butter, so it would stay on the head when applied.

Another way to make a vile cure for baldness was to fill a clay vessel with mice, seal it with a lid, and bury it for a year. When the year was up, dig it up and open it, and smear the results not the scalp. This was considered so powerful a remedy that it was advised to wear gloves when handling it, lest you grow hair on your fingertips.

It wasn't all about baldness: one might also lament the graying of the hair. We know oak galls were used in making dark ink. Hot water, powdered oak galls, and the juice of white cabbage were mixed together, (presumably) cooled, and then applied to the graying hair and a cabbage leaf put on top of the process. This was supposed to reverse graying.

An old friend, Hildegarde of Bingen, wrote about medicine as well as music. She had ideas about hair and its lack:

A person with a big, wide bald spot has strong warmth inside himself. This warmth and the sweat from his head push out the hair. The moisture of his breath is fertile and moistens the flesh where the beard grows so that much hair can grow there. But a person who does not have much hair in his beard, though hair in abundance on his head, is cold and quite infertile. When his breath touches the flesh around his mouth this flesh becomes infertile.

And she also had a solution for hair loss:

When a young person begins to lose his hair, take bear fat, a small quantity of ashes from wheat straw or from winter wheat straw, mix this together and anoint the entire head with it, especially those areas on the head where the hair is beginning to fall out. Afterwards, he should not wash this ointment off for a long while.

Researching for this post led me to information that prompts me to write a "Hair and Religion, Part 3"; I'll get right on that for next time.

Charles the Bald

Charlemagne's son and successor as emperor, Louis the Pious, had several children. Several of them were with his first wife, Ermengarde of Hesbaye. After her death in 818, Louis married Judith of Bavaria and had one son, Charles, born 13 June 823. Charles was much younger than his brothers, who all had been granted sub-kingdoms of their own by the time of his birth. The presence of another son and possible successor to Louis raised concerns among the older children.

Louis tried to give Charles his own sub-kingdom, but Louis' older sons rebelled against these attempts. You can read more about that here. In 837, Louis called his nobles together in Aachen and asked them to recognize Charles as heir to the entirety of Gaul. When Louis died in 840, Charles' allied himself with his older brother Louis the German to defeat their other brother, Lothair I. The Treaty of Verdun in 843 gave Charles all of the kingdom of the West Franks, an area which essentially encompasses modern day France. Louis the German held the eastern area that corresponds to Germany. Lothair kept the title King of Italy.

Life was relatively peaceful after Verdun. The brothers would meet every few years to discuss matters of mutual concern. In 858, however, Louis was persuaded by his nobles to try to take land from Charles. Charles was not very well-liked by his people, who did not respond to his call to raise an army, so he fled to Burgundy. Louis the German's bid failed, because the bishops refused to crown him king of the West Franks.

He eventually became emperor when Lothair's son died, and traveled to Rome where Pope John VIII. When John asked him for help against the Saracens in Italy, he crossed the Alps to help, but the nobles of Lombardy were not interested in supporting him. Charles, feeling ill, started back home, but died on 6 October 877, in the mountains. The body had to be brought home for proper burial, but carrying a body across the Alps was not easy or swift. The stench from the decaying corpse prompted them to bury him as soon as possible, at an abbey in Burgundy. A few years later the body as disinterred and taken for burial to the Abbey of Saint-Denis

Regarding his nickname: A Genealogy of Frankish Kings that was started during his reign lists him as Karolus Calvus, "Charles the Bald." There are no contemporary records that suggest he had little or no hair. Some scholars suggest that it was an ironic nickname because he was very hairy. Others point out that "bald" could simply be a reference to his lack of land at first. The illustration above is of Charles in the Vivian Bible, made in 845, and shows him with plenty of hair.

The Middle Ages cared about hair and its upkeep, and baldness was not seen as desirable. There were cures for baldness. If you're interested in them, come back tomorrow.

Pope John VIII

John VIII was a Roman who, as a young man, witnessed the 846 CE raid against Rome by Muslims. According to the Liber Pontificalis ("Book of the Popes"), the raiders were Saracens from Africa, although other records offer other origins. These would have been Aghlabids from Ifriqiya, who started with the conquest of Sicily a couple decades earlier. They plundered the suburbs of Rome but were prevented from entering the city thanks to the walls, which were damaged but not breached.

When he became pope on 14 December 872 (after the death of Adrian II), John commenced to push back on the presence of Muslims in and around Italy. He considered the Muslim successes the result of bad Christians. He requested aid from Charles the Bald and others, but aid was not forthcoming, not even from local Christian leaders.

The incoming Muslims had, in some cases, settled in and made arrangements with local Christians to live peaceably near each other. He decided to declare a ban on forming alliances, but no one was buying it. This was seen simply as a ploy to increase the reach and power of the Papal States.

In 876 he himself traveled to the cities of Salerno, Capua, Naples, Gaeta, and Amalfi to form an alliance against the Saracens. He reinforced the walls of the city. The 846 raid had plundered the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (which was its name, not just a description of its location). He fortified the basilica, the connected monastery, and even the nearby houses. He also formed a papal fleet.

John's predecessor, Adrian, had condemned Photios I, the patriarch of Constantinople. John reinstated him, hoping to appease the Byzantines and gain their support.

Unfortunately for John, his attempts to strengthen Rome drained the papal treasury. This is assumed to be the reason that, almost exactly one decade after the start of his pontificate, he was poisoned and then clubbed to death by his own clergy, on 16 December 882.

"Taking out the boss" was not the usual way to end the pontificate of a pope, but it was effectively employed more than once in the history of the Liber Pontificalis, especially in the 10th century starting with John. There were another half-dozen "eliminations" that are certain, and then maybe a further half-dozen papal deaths that were, let's say, a little bit suspicious.

But as tempting a topic that is, I've realized that Charles the Bald keeps getting mentioned, going back 12 years, and hasn't really been given his own entry, despite being the descendant and ancestor of those who have been highlighted. Time to put Charles in the spotlight and find out if he really was bald, or if that was a reference to some other characteristic. See you tomorrow.

"Pope Joan"

Jean de Mailly was a Dominican chronicler working in Metz in northeast France in the middle of the 13th century. He wrote a history of the Diocese of Metz, in which he mentions a female pope reigning for two years about the year 1100. She was a talented woman who dressed as a man and became a notary to the pontifical Curia, then a cardinal, and finally a pope.

One day, while riding her horse, she gave birth to a son, revealing the deception. (Honestly, if she were pope for two years and at the end of that time had a son, then at least one person in her orbit knew that she was actually a woman.) With the deception revealed, she got tied to the tail of the horse, dragged around the city, then stoned to death and buried on the spot with the inscription placed over her Petre pater patrum papissae prodito partum ("Peter, Father of Fathers, betray the childbearing of the woman Pope").

This idea tickled the imagination of others, and so it became repeated and expanded. Along came Martin of Troppau, a Polish Dominican, who also wrote history. His history of the world first appeared during the pontificate of Clement IV (1265-68), but it wasn't until the third edition in 1277 that he added the story of the female pope.

Martin places the event in the 9th century, just after the death of Pope Leo IV (847-55). She was an "Englishman" named John of Mainz. Originally taken to Athens as a young girl in male clothing, she became educated until no one was her intellectual equal. She went to Rome (still disguised as a man), and earned so much respect that she was eventually made pope. During a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran, she gave birth to a child. She died (and was buried) on the spot. Martin refers to her as Johanna. Martin himself was a papal chaplain at the Vatican, so his accounts were widely read, and the legend spread. In a later version of his history he changed the story, saying that she was deposed, imprisoned, and then lived for many years doing penance. The child grew up to become bishop of Ostia, who had her body interred at Ostia.

Later writers give her the birth name of Agnes; others said she was Gilberta. One version of the story says she was given a vision and offered eternal punishment or temporal disgrace. She chose the latter, and that is why she died on the spot after giving birth.

By the 15th century, scholars were looking at these stories and noting their improbability. Unfortunately, the 20th century enjoys escapism and conspiracy theories, and the legend of "Pope Joan" has been embellished to the point where entire books have been written to recount her "history." There is no gap in the history of popes where Joan was excised (although I wrote here, coincidentally, that one annal thought there was a gap before Leo IV, not after.) A 10th-century pope, John XII (955-64), supposedly had a concubine named Joan who was given much authority at the papal palace during his pontificate, and some have speculated that this gave rise to the idea of a "Pope Joan."

But let's say she did become pope; what was she called? She would not have taken the name "Pope Joan"! A Dominican named Bartolomeo Platina (1421-81) called her Pope John VIII. This is silly, since he should have known that there was a Pope John VIII in the 9th century, and not an inconsequential one, either. Let's talk about him next time.

Pope John XII

After the story of Gregorius by Hartmann von Aue, I became curious if there ever was a pope who was the product of incest. The only pope I could find with any connection to incest was John XII, who was called Octavian at birth and probably should never have become pope.

His father was Alberic II of Spoleto (912 - 954). Alberic styled himself Prince of Rome, and for all intents and purposes, he controlled Rome politically after a quarrel with the actual King of Rome, Hugh, when Alberic incited a mob that drove Hugh out of the city. Alberic married his step-sister Alda, which would (sort of) make their son the product of incest. But their son was Gregory I of Tusculum. Octavian's mother was actually Alberic's concubine. On Alberic's deathbed, he had the nobles and clergy of Rome swear to make Octavian the next pope (Gregory was a count, and didn't need anything else).

This idea was not completely out of the blue. Octavian had entered holy orders and was a cardinal deacon of a basilica in Rome. Pope Agapetus II died in November 955, and the 25-year-old Octavian was elected his successor one month later, taking the name John XII.

A note about the name: for centuries, popes used their own names when elected; they rarely took a new name when they became pope. When Octavian chose to call himself "John" it was only the third time that a pope took a new name. This is called a "regnal name"; that is, the name used when one starts a reign or pontificate. The only other times prior to this when a pope used a different name were John II (born Mercurius, reigned 533-535) and John III (born Catelinus, reigned 561-574). Octavian would use 'Octavian" when issuing directives on secular matters, and "John XII" when issuing papal bulls.

There were plenty of secular issues. In 960 he personally led an attack on some Lombard duchies to reclaim part of the Papal States. He did not achieve that goal, and in fact had to agree to relinquish a claim on certain territories. He was equally ineffective in controlling Rome the way his father had. When King Berengar II of Italy began to attack papal territory, John appealed to Otto I "the Great" of Germany. For his help, John crowned Otto Holy Roman Emperor.

At home, John was considered coarse and immoral; the Lateran Palace was described as a brothel. At a Synod of Rome in 963, charges of corruption were brought against him. The contemporary priest and historian Liudprand of Cremona offers us this (hearsay) account:

Then, rising up, the cardinal priest Peter testified that he himself had seen John XII celebrate Mass without taking communion. John, bishop of Narni, and John, a cardinal deacon, professed that they themselves saw that a deacon had been ordained in a horse stable, but were unsure of the time. Benedict, cardinal deacon, with other co-deacons and priests, said they knew that he had been paid for ordaining bishops, specifically that he had ordained a ten-year-old bishop in the city of Todi ... They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse.

I have italicized the relevant phrase. (I promised an incestuous pope, after all.)

It was his deal with Otto that ultimately caused him trouble. Otto wanted John to abandon his worldly ways. As Otto did what John wanted—subduing Berengar—John feared Otto's hold in Italy and sent for help from the Magyars and the Byzantines. Seeing John turn on him, Otto besieged Rome. John fled Rome, taking papal treasure with him. A council summoned in Rome by Otto deposed John and elected Pope Leo VIII in his place.

After Otto left Rome, John re-entered (Leo fled) and summoned his own synod to declare his deposition invalid. Before he could negotiate with Otto, he died on 14 May 964. The cause of his death is uncertain. All accounts say it involved an adulterous encounter, but some say he died of apoplexy and some say he was caught and killed by the husband.

His very worldly behavior may explain a papal legend that won't go away. A medieval writer claims that among John's concubines was one named Joan who wielded great authority during John's pontificate. It has been suggested that this gave rise to the legend of "Pope Joan," that supposedly there was a pope who was secretly a woman—a claim for which no evidence exists. But I suppose that legend is worth examining next time.

The Good Sinner

The German knight-poet Hartmann von Aue wrote epic poetry, some of which was about the Arthurian Cycle. He also wrote an early "rags to riches" story called Gregorius, which was popular enough that five intact manuscripts remain, as well as six fragments.

The death of a wealthy duke leaves his very young son and daughter orphaned and destitute. The two have an incestuous union that produces a child, Gregorius, who is born when his parents are still only about eleven years old. A wise old man sends the father to Jerusalem on pilgrimage to repent of his sins. The father dies along the way. The same man tells the mother to put the child in a box and put the box out to sea so God can take care of him. The child is placed in a box with 20 pieces of gold and a tablet explaining his birth.

The box is found by two fishermen who are working on behalf of an abbey. The present the box to the abbot, who tells one of the fisherman to raise the boy as his own. When Gregorius is six, he begins his education under the abbot. He grows into a smart and handsome young man, which makes clear to those around him that he could not be the son of a mere fisherman. Realizing his family is not his own, he talks to the abbot, who gives him the tablet that explains his origin. In order to repent of his parents' sin, he becomes a knight to perform chivalric deeds.

Coming upon a besieged city, he frees it and wins the hand of its mistress. They marry, and he settles down in the city. A maid notices that, there is a room which the knight frequents, after which he always emerges with eyes red from crying. She leads Gregorius' wife there, and they find the tablet that explains his origin. The wife recognizes the tablet, because (in an Oedipal twist), she is the mother who bore him! She realizes that she is his mother and wife and aunt. When he discovers the truth, Gregorius tells his wife-mother to give away all her goods and live a life of poverty as penance. Gregorius has himself chained to a rock in the middle of a lake, and has the keys to his chains thrown into the water by a fisherman. The fisherman says that, if the key is ever found, it will be proof that Gregorius is a holy man whose penance has been accepted by god.

Well! Seventeen years later, two priests have a vision from God that the next pope will be found on a rock in Aquitania, repenting of his sins. The two set off to look for this man, and come upon the fisherman who chained him and threw the key. The fisherman should have simply offered them a meal, but instead he sells them a fish. When the fisherman cuts the fish open to clean it, he finds a key inside. He is horrified that he has chained a holy man to a rock, and also that after seventeen years the man is dead.

He ferries the two clergymen to the rock where they find an emaciated but still-living Gregorius. He unlocks the chain, and Gregorius goes off with the clergymen and becomes pope. As pope, he one day recognizes a poor and penitent woman as his mother, although she does not recognize him. He tells her who he is, and that their penance was sufficient to be forgiven by God.

A real rollercoaster of a story for the 12th century! But was this inspired by a legend of a pope who was the product of incest? Unknown, but incest does haunt the record of a pope who is also reputed to have been born of a concubine. Tomorrow let's look at the disturbing reign of Pope John XII.

The Poet Knight

Hartmann von Aue (born c.1160) started as a member of the lower nobility in Swabia. We don't know precisely where he was born; the "von Aue" tacked onto his name is because he became a knight in the service of the Lords of Aue (Obernau by the River Neckar).

He was educated at a monastery school and became a minor minister at the Swabian court. Whether at the monastery or later we don't know, but besides German he had knowledge of French and Latin. He participated in a Crusade, either the Third Crusade in 1189 or its followup in 1197 (called the "Emperor's Crusade"), when Hohenstaufen Emperor Henry VI tried to redeem the efforts of his father, Emperor Frederick I "Barbarossa," during the Third.

Outside of his knightly duties he was a poet and songwriter. He is considered one of the three great epic poets of Middle High German, along with Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gottfried von Strasburg.

Four narrative poems came from Hartmann's pen, two of which, Erec and Iwein, are part of the Arthurian cycle and help to introducer that subject into German epic poetry. They are based, respectively, on Eric and Enide and Yvain, the Knight of the Lion by Chrétien de Troyes.

The other two are Gregorius, adapted from a French epic, and Der arme Heinrich, which tells the story of a leper cured by a young girl.

The date of his death is unknown, but von Strasburg, writing in his "Tristan" c.1210 mentions that Hartmann is still living, while Heinrich von dem Türlin, in his Arthurian poem "Krone" ("The Crown"; c.1215-1220) says Hartmann is deceased.

Gregorius is quite unusual, and a summary here would make this post very long, so I think I'll save it for tomorrow.

Types of Knight

It was mentioned that John de Coupland was made a "knight banneret" after service to King Edward III. What was the significance of this?

The typical knight, the "basic" knight, was a "knight bachelor." This position existed in England during the reign of Henry III (1216 - 1272). The word "bachelor" denoted a junior rank, and had nothing to do with marital status. In fact, a wife gained some status when her husband was knighted. A knight bachelor would be addressed as "Sir John Smith" or "Sir John," and his wife would be addressed as "Lady Smith." The same naming convention applies in modern times.

The knight does not have any letters after his name the way, say, Members of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire get to write "MBE" after their name. Conversely, you may be given an honor such as the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, but this does not come with the honorific "Sir" or "Lady." It is an honor, not a title.

A 'knight banneret' was different from a knight bachelor. The outward sign that one was a knight banneret was, as the name implies, a knight who had a banner. Knights bachelor fought under the banner of their lord. A knight banneret could have his own coat of arms on a banner in battles, and could have his own contingent in battle who bore his standard. That standard was a squared banner, not a tapering standard or pennon (see illustration of a knight banneret).

The banneret was not a hereditary title like count or duke that could be passed to sons, but it had other benefits. The knight banneret would be paid more during war time. The wife of a knight banneret could be called banneress. Because the banneret title was given for valor in battle or special service to the king, it often led also, for the recipient, additional privileges such as other titles or estates. The 14th century saw some confusion when some knights banneret also were elevated as barons. Which designation was more appropriate? The resolution was to refer to the subject as a baron in a civil context and as a banneret in a military context, when they could request a higher rate of pay.

The knight bachelor had no distinguishing insignia that would compare to the other's banner. In 1926, however, King George V authorized the wearing of a badge for knights bachelor on appropriate occasions. (Illustrated.)

The illustration at top is of Hartmann von Aue, a 12th-century German knight. Let's talk about him tomorrow.

John de Coupland's Mistake

When John de Coupland apprehended King David II of Scotland during the Battle of Neville's Cross in 1346(see illustration), his future was secured. The ransom of a king would have set up John and his descendants forever. It didn't work that way, however. John's duty was to hand such a prisoner over to John's liege lord, King Edward III.

Edward was in France, however (which was why David thought it was a good time for attacking England). So John had to secure his prisoner until he could properly hand him over. They were in the middle of battle, however, so John rode 15 leagues to get away from the ongoing battle and any Scots who might try to rescue their king. He arrived at a castle in Ogle, well north of the battle site, and stopped there to secure the prisoner.

Word got around, and Edward's queen, Philippa, sent word that King David was to be brought to her, as the highest ranking person in England at the time. John refused, saying he would only surrender David to the king. Philippa was outraged at this snub, and wrote to Edward in Calais. Edward sent his messengers to go to England and tell de Coupland to appear before the king in Calais ASAP. John made sure David was secure, and went to Calais.

When he came before Edward, John explained that he did not mean to offend the queen, but he felt his duty was to the man to whom he made his oath of loyalty. King Edward forgave him the slight to the queen, and gave him the order to return to England and hand his captive over to Philippa.

At that point John de Coupland's life changed. Edward made him a knight banneret and £500 per year for life, plus an additional £100 for staying by the king with 20 men at arms. This was a very large boost to his fortunes, since he had only been earning £20 per year previously for his service. de Coupland went back to England and took David to Philippa, who had gone north to York. She brought David back to the Tower in London, where he was made comfortable. (He had already been attended by physicians who had removed most of two arrows in his face.) He was England's captive for 11 years, until 1357.

de Coupland was also made the Constable of Roxburgh Castle and the Sheriff of Roxburghsire (although the Castle title was mostly honorary, since at the time it was under Scottish control—its possession went back and forth between England and Scotland). He had other titles which would have brought him revenue. He became a very wealthy landowner in the north of England.

He was killed on 20 December 1363 by a band of men. Edward ordered an inquiry, which determined that it was a premeditated attack, and identified several names of men involved. They perpetrators all fled north to Scotland, however, and no retribution came about. de Coupland likely made enemies in the north by owning so much land and by his history as the man who captured the Scottish king.

Now, as to the term "knight banneret." How was that different from just being a knight? What were the different types of knight? We'll go into that next time.

King David's Ransom

During the Battle of Neville's Cross, when King David II of Scotland heeded France's request to attack England as part of their Auld Alliance, David realized things were going ill for him. Although the Scots had the greater numbers, and the belief was that the English army was fully engaged on the continent in the Hundred Years War, England had left its northern forces behind, precisely because Edward III didn't trust Scotland.

David had dismounted to fight, and his location on the battlefield had become unclear. He had taken two arrows to his face, and attempted to hide from the enemy. Contemporary accounts state that he hid under a bridge over the River Browney. A group of English soldiers near the bridge saw him reflected in the water of the river and moved to capture him. He fought back and knocked out two teeth of John de Coupland, who took him prisoner.

David was held prisoner from 1346 to 1357. First he was brought to Bamburgh Castle, where surgeons tried to remove the arrows. The tip of one could not be removed and was the cause of headaches for the rest of his life. (John Bradmore would have been useful here, but he was still a child. He was then taken to London and put in the Tower. When Edward III returned from France, David was transferred to Windsor Castle. Finally, David and his household were put in Odiham Castle (its ruins are pictured above). Captivity for a king was generally comfortable, but in 1355 he was forbidden any contact with his family, which may have accelerated negotiations for his ransom (Edward was always looking for more money for his wars).

On 3 October 1357, a treaty was signed that gave 10,000 marks each year for ten years as ransom. He returned to Scotland with an English mistress, Katherine Mortimer. (David had married Edward III's sister, Joan of the Tower, in 1328 when she was seven and he was four. They had no children. She died in 1362.) Mortimer was killed in 1360 by men hired by the Earl of Angus. David had another mistress, Margaret Drummond, whom he married in 1364. (Then he took another mistress, Agnes Dunbar.)

This ransom plan worked for a few years, but the Scottish nobles could not raise 10,000 marks in 1363, and David went to London to try to re-negotiate a settlement. He offered to leave Scotland to Edward or one of his many sons in David's will. In 1364 Scotland's Parliament rejected a proposal for Edward's son Lionel of Antwerp to become the next king. David kept talking to Edward, prolonging the consequences of non-payment (which would mean going back into captivity).

David died on 22 February 1371, aged 46. He was buried quickly in the nearest likely place, in Holyrood Abbey. He wished to be buried near his parents in Dunfermline, but his successor, Robert II, wanted to "conclude" David's reign as quickly as possible to begin his own.

Now, the transition above between paragraphs two and three was hardly a transition at all: it would appear that from his capture to his captivity just "happened" in a flash. It wasn't that easy, and John de Coupland almost got in trouble for it. When the dust settled, however, de Coupland made out extremely well. I'll explain his almost fall but steady rise tomorrow.

The Battle of Neville's Cross

Scotland's relationship with England has always been an issue on the island of Great Britain. They were "friendly enemies," since England would have loved to possess the entirety of the island. Sometimes it pursued this aim through warfare, sometimes through supporting or installing a king of Scotland that would be loyal to England's king. For its part, Scotland sometimes could not help but invade southward to gain real estate and resources, or simply go to war against England to assert its independence.

To that end, there were over the years what are called the wars of Scottish Independence. They were successful in that Scotland managed to maintain its independence from England. During the Second War of Scottish Independence, which took place between the years 1332 and 1357, one of the battles was fought at Neville's Cross, right next to Durham England.

The catalyst for this particular battle was not any particular incident of aggression between the countries. Scotland had made a treaty with France in 1295 called "the Auld Alliance" against their common antagonist, England. France was fighting England in the Hundred Years War, and called on Scotland to help based on the treaty. England was currently invading France, and Scotland's attack could either weaken England for a later counter-invasion by France or cause England to pull troops away from France.

As it turns out, it did neither. Scotland's army of 10-12,000 was led by King David II. They were met by Ralph, Lord Neville with about 6-7000 men. The Scots were soundly defeated and David captured. His ransoming effort also created a truce between the two countries that lasted four decades.

How did the superior numbers lose the battle? France convinced the Scots that they would have an easy time of it with the English army on the continent, but the English had plenty of soldiers at home who were more experienced. The Scottish army had a few noblemen on horseback, but the majority were on foot and had swords and daggers and shields. They had a few archers. The English had more archers with longbows and rained arrows on the Scots until the fighting got closer, and more plate armor.

Before being stopped at Neville's Cross (so-called because of an Anglo-Saxon stone cross at the location), the Scots did do damage to the countryside. They destroyed a castle called the Peel of Liddell and plundered the Great Priory of Hexham. They would have sacked Carlisle, but the city offered them money to leave them alone.

During the battle, King David had dismounted to fight on foot. At one point he decided to hide. I want to talk about his discovery, capture, and ransom next. See you tomorrow.

Holyrood Abbey

In 1127, while King David of Scotland was hunting in the forests east of Edinburgh, his horse was startled by a hart and bucked; David was thrown from the horse, and the hart charged at him, antlers first. David threw up his hands to grasp the antlers, when suddenly a shining cross appeared between the antlers, causing the beast to pause and saving the king's life.

The day happened to be the Feast of the Cross, celebrating the finding of the True Cross by Saint Helena. David decided to found an abbey the following year on the spot, which he named Holyrood ("holy + cross"). In its church was a reliquary with a piece of the True Cross that David's mother, Saint Margaret, brought from Waltham Abbey (supposed burial place of Harold). (In 1346 this relic fell into the hands of the English after the Battle of Neville's Cross.)

It was originally occupied by Canons Regular from Merton Priory. (At about this time, Thomas Becket [born c.1120] was starting as a student at Merton.) The place became an important location for councils. The papal legates to Scotland would have councils there. When David's grandson, William the Lion, was captured at the Battle of Alnwick (not the same one where David's father was killed), the nobles met at Holyrood to discuss his ransom. Scotland's parliament met there several times between 1256 and 1410. Robert the Bruce also held a parliament there.

After the mid-1400s, the kings of Scotland began using it as a residence while at Edinburgh. In the second half of the 1500s, parts of it were in such a state of disrepair that they need to be closed down, demolished, and completely rebuilt. Evidence of the ruins shows that the original structure was not built to the same standards as the rest of Europe. The aisle vaults had thin flagstones and the vertical pieces were constructed with, let's say, less attention to straight lines than we would like to see in a building that had tons of stone suspended over your head. In 1686, James VII established a Jesuit College there. A year later the abbey was converted to a Roman Catholic Chapel. Its use became increasingly religious again, taking interest in it out of public interest. Without royal attention, the fabric began to decay more. The roof collapsed in 1768 and was never replaced. Proposals to rebuild and restore have never come to fruition, but the ruins (see illustration) continue to be a tourist destination.

Tomorrow, let's jump ahead in time to the Battle of Neville's Cross, part of the Second Scottish War of Independence, that lost the piece of the True Cross.

The Davidian Revolution

When David I became King of Scotland, little did the world know that the previous three decades of short reigns and rebellions would be replaced by three decades of reform and growth.

David was the youngest son of Malcolm III and Margaret of Wessex, and since his father's death in 1093 had seen an uncle and several brothers take their turns on the throne. David was not expected to have his turn, but was given part of Scotland to manage, which gave him the title Prince of the Cumbrians (overseeing the former Kingdom of Strathclyde) starting in 1113.

This was promoted by the king of England, Henry I, who cultivated David's friendship. Henry also, in 1113, arranged for David his marriage to Matilda of Huntingdon (and why not? Henry was married to David's sister, also called Matilda). This brought to David the "Honour of Huntingdon" which was a large area in northern England. This helped David increase his wealth and power even before achieving the throne.

When David became king in 124, he set about transforming Scotland into a country that more closely resembled the rest of Europe in its civil and political structure. He was able to do this partly by bringing in Norman support. He built castles and set up a feudal system of smaller and larger lordships. He established sheriffs to carry out administrative duties on behalf of the king. He also created two justiciars to preside over law cases, one each for above and below the river Forth.

He was able to mine silver at Alston to create Scotland's first silver coinage and further increase his power. One of the side-effects of minting coins with the king's image and seal is that those who come in contact with them are constantly reminded of the source of wealth and power, reinforcing loyalty to the king who has them.

Scotland until this time did not have organized towns or burghs as the rest of Europe and England knew them. Roxburgh and Berwick were created while he was prince of the Cumbrians, with definite boundaries, charters, and trading rights. Once he became king, he made more burghs at Stirling, Dunfermline and Edinburgh. More were to follow.

Religious reform was another of his goals, begun by his mother. David became one of Scotland's great monastic patrons, founding various abbeys. He increased the number of bishops in Scotland (from four to nine, according to Aelred of Rievaulx), but it is more likely that this expansion was brought about by of Thurstan, Archbishop of York, with Fergus of Galloway.

The reign was not entirely easy for him. He took sides in the period in England called The Anarchy, and lost the Battle of the Standard when he invaded England to support Empress Matilda. By and large, though, he is remembered for the "Europeanization" of Scotland.

One of the well-known abbeys he founded was Holyrood, which has an interesting legend about it. I'll share that tomorrow.

Alexander I

The fifth son of Malcolm III and Margaret of Wessex, Alexander got to be king of Scotland after Malcolm's death only after his uncle and his half-brother and his uncle (again) and his brother had their chance.

When Edgar died in 1107, he wanted Alexander to succeed him. He also wanted their younger brother, David, to have something of his own, so David was given an appanage. An appanage (from Latin adpanare, literally "to give bread") was traditionally a grant of land for a younger son who normally would not be in the line of succession because of primogeniture. David was given an appanage in southern Scotland, the former kingdom of Strathclyde. This was supported by Henry I of England, the boys' brother-in-law through marriage to their sister Edith, now called Matilda.

Another matrimonial link between the two countries took place when Alexander married Sybilla of Normandy. She was the first child of Henry I with his mistress, Lady Sybilla Corbet. We don't know when they married, but Sybilla was born c.1092, and they were married by 1114 when she was 22. In 1114 Alexander joined Henry on campaign in Wales against Gruffudd ap Cynan of Gwynedd.

Alexander and Sybilla seemed to be a devoted couple, but childless. She died in 1122 while at the village of Kenmore, and Alexander planned an Augustinian Priory at the location. He did not remarry.

Alexander later gained the nickname "the Fierce" because of his short temper with his subjects, but that temper supposedly was never aimed at clergy. He was considered very pious, like his wife. He was the senior lay person in 1104 when the remains of St. Cuthbert were examined before their re-interment, when Ralph d'Escures declared that the saint's body was uncorrupted. He founded religious institutions at Scone and Inchcolm, and had towers built at Dunfermline Abbey where his mother was buried.

His fierceness was earned when he was attacked by men from Moray, where the family of Macbeth ruled who had been his family's enemy not too long before. He pushed them and soundly defeated them.

Alexander died in April 1124, leaving the kingdom to David, who ruled for nearly 30 years and made so many changes that scholars refer to the Davidian Revolution. I'll explain just what changes he made next time.

Edgar Takes the Reigns

Donald III of Scotland grabbed the throne, then lost it to his nephew Duncan, then grabbed it again. This second time around, Donald was in his early 60s and had no heir of his own. He likely designated his nephew Edmund as his heir. (He did have one known daughter, Bethoc, who married the Lord of Tyndale.)

Edmund was the son of Malcolm III, but when Malcolm and the eldest brother Edward died, Edmund chose to side with his uncle Donald instead of having the throne go to one of Malcolm's other sons, such as himself or Edgar or Ethelred. William of Malmesbury said Edmund bargained "for half the kingdom" from Donald; if true, it suggests that Edmund would inherit the kingdom after Donald.

Malcolm and Margaret's next surviving son, Edgar, gained the support of English King William Rufus. According to Malmesbury, Edgar and his uncle, Edgar Ætheling, invaded Scotland with the military support of the Anglo-Normans and that Donald was "slain by the craftiness of David [Malcolm and Margaret's youngest]... and by the strength of William [Rufus]." Historian John of Fordun, writing years later, says Donald was blinded and imprisoned. He supposedly died in 1099 at the age of 67, having spent his last years in captivity.

Malcolm's son Edgar then became Edgar I of Scotland (his seal is shown above). Although he reigned for a decade (1097 - 1107), he never gained complete control of all parts of Scotland. Military support from William II "Rufus" of England would have helped, but William had his own issues like a revolt in Northumbria and spending time in Normandy, which he purchased from his brother Robert Curthose.

Still, Edgar maintained a relationship with the English court, and not as a vassal to the English king. Records show the king paying for Edgar's expenses at court, which would not be necessary if William were Edgar's feudal lord. He seems to have been an honored guest. Edgar was sword-bearer for the king in the inauguration of the new Westminster Hall. After William's death, however, this closeness ended: he was not present at Henry I's coronation.

A few notable events appear in the sparse records of his reign. He signed a treaty with Magnus Barefoot of Norway, creating a firm border with Norwegian claims in the western part of the north. He also gave a unique gift to the High King of Ireland, Gael Muirchertach Ua Briain. It was a camel (but might have been an elephant) brought back from the First Crusade. He also connected with Anselm of Canterbury to bring back the monks of Canterbury that Donald had expelled from his mother's favorite Dunfermline Abbey.

Edgar never married. He died on 8 January 1107, leaving his brother Alexander as his successor—but not for the whole country. His will also granted their younger brother David the former kingdom of Strathclyde. This did not make David a king: he was still a prince and his older brother's subject. As for Alexander himself, he did not gain a reputation as a nice king, but that's a story for tomorrow.

The Repeat King

So when Malcolm III of Scotland died, his brother swept in and became King Donald III before Malcolm's sons could succeed their father. The sons fled to England for safety, reckoning they had no chance. There was one son of Malcolm who thought differently, however, and he was not a son this blog has recently covered.

Prior to his marriage to Margaret of Wessex, Malcolm had another wife, the Norwegian Ingibiorg Finnsdottir. Details are sketchy about this marriage, but they had at least one son, Duncan. In the initial clashes between Scotland and Duke William of Normandy, Duncan was offered as a hostage. Duncan was therefore being raised in Normandy. When William died in 1087, his son Robert Curthose released Duncan and knighted him. Duncan chose to go to England serve Robert's brother, William Rufus. Clearly, Malcolm had "written off" his eldest son by his first marriage, since he had declared his eldest by Margaret his heir.

Back in Scotland, Donald was having trouble: not everyone welcomed his return and rule. Duncan bagged negotiating with some of the landowners and local barons, making promises of land and titles. William Rufus gave him Norman military support. Within a year of Donald taking the throne, Duncan arrived at the head of an army in the summer of 1094. Donald was defeated, retreating to the Scottish Highlands.

Duncan was crowned king at Scone, but only controlled the southern part. The locals did not appreciate someone they saw as essentially an English vassal, or the presence of the Normans with him. This created discontent. He decided to send his foreign allies back to England, which created its own problems. Duncan had trouble with raids by rebels, and was forced to negotiate with them rather than defeat them.

Meanwhile, Donald was gathering his forces. After only a few months of rule, Duncan was attacked by Donald's army and killed in an ambush on 12 November.

Donald was, once again, King of Scotland, less than a year after being ousted. He chose his nephew, Malcolm's son Edmund, who had supported him after Malcolm's death, as his heir and co-ruler. This did not sit well with Edmund's siblings, as we shall see.

Donald III of Scotland

When Malcolm III died at the 2nd Battle of Alnwick, his eldest son died with him (and his wife died a few days later after hearing the news), but he had other sons who could succeed him. That did not happen, however, as another man swept in and seized the throne.

This other man was actually Malcolm's brother, Donald. Donald's activities for years prior to claiming the throne is unknown, because he was hiding in Ireland. Donald's father was Duncan, King of Scotland from 1034 to 1040 when he was killed (and succeeded by) Macbeth; yes, that Macbeth. Shakespeare has the boys old enough to manage this themselves:

Malcolm: “What will you do? Let’s not consort with them: To show an unfelt sorrow is an office which the false man does easy. I’ll to England.”

Donalbain:* “To Ireland, I; our separated fortune shall keep us both the safer: where we are, there’s daggers in men’s smiles: the near in blood, the nearer bloody.” [Macbeth, III,3]

Both the boys were very young in reality (Donald about seven). It is more likely that Duncan, when he was about to face Macbeth's rebellion, sent his sons away for safety himself.

Donald would have been 25 years old when Malcolm killed Macbeth and took the throne back into the family. Even with the family back in charge, we do not know exactly what Donald was doing or if he returned to Scotland. After the 1093 Battle of Alnwick and the death of the king and queen and immediate heir, he was able to come forward and present himself as the obvious choice for kingship.

This may not have been as radical a "coup" for Scotland as we might think. Although Malcolm and Margaret had a very successful marriage, Margaret may not have been the favorite of Scotland. She worked to change the Scottish church to bring its practices closer to what she grew up with on the continent. She was one of the last Anglo-Saxon princesses, and gave refuge at court to Anglo-Saxon exiles fleeing the Normans who had taken over England. She also broke tradition and gave Anglo-Saxon names to her children, rather than Scottish names.

John of Fordun (1360 - 1384, so not a contemporary) wrote that Donald came to Scotland "at the head of a numerous band" and besieged Edinburgh with Malcolm's sons inside. He adds that Edgar Ætheling (Malcolm's brother-in-law) took the sons to England. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Donald expelled all the English from his court.

So Donald was King of Scotland. It's a nice job...if you can keep it. Let's see how well he did at that. See you tomorrow.

*Donalbain = "Donald the Fair"

Saint Margaret of Scotland

Margaret of Wessex was almost 50 years old in 1093 when her husband, King Malcolm III of Scotland, and her eldest son went to war against the English at the Battle of Alnwick, where they were killed on 13 November. Tradition says that her son Ethelred, the lay abbot of Dunkeld, was with her when her son Edgar brought the news.

Margaret died three days later; no one assumes the cause was anything other than grief.

Her close friend, advisor, and biographer, Turgot of Durham, left us with a record of extreme piety. She worked on church reform, trying to bring the practices of the Scottish church closer to those of the continent (where she spent her childhood) and Rome. She performed charitable works, even washing the feet of the poor. She rose each midnight to attend Mass. She brought the Benedictines to establish a monastery at Dunfermline, and paid to establish ferries across the Firth of Forth to allow pilgrims to reach Saint Andrew's in Fife.

Her husband, whom the records call illiterate (but those may have been motivated by political enemies) admired her learning and had her books decorated in gold and silver. A pocket Gospel of hers is in the Bodleian.

Margaret was buried before the high altar at Dunfermline Abbey. Her husband's body had been interred in Tynemouth Priory, but was brought to Dunfermline for reburial near his wife during the reign of their son Alexander (1107 - 1124). That was not, however, the end of their love story.

Pope Innocent IV canonized Margaret in 1250 in recognition of her good works and personal piety. As a result, her body was disinterred at Dunfermline and the remains immediately placed into a reliquary appropriate for a saint of the Catholic Church. When they tried to carry the reliquary to its new location (a new shrine at Dunfermline), however, the path went past the location of Malcolm's remains. Those transporting the reliquary claimed it suddenly became too heavy to move. Interpreting this as a desire for Margaret to remain near her husband, Malcolm's body was likewise disinterred and placed near hers.

That was not the end of her body's travels. Mary Queen of Scots had Margaret's head exhumed and brought to Edinburgh as a "good luck charm" to assist in childbirth (N.B.: her son James was not born until 1566). In 1597 the head went to the Jesuits at the Scots College in France, but it was lost during the French revolution. The rest of her (and Malcolm) was transferred to Madrid by Philip II of Spain, but the location of their remains has been lost.

Malcolm and Margaret had several sons, any one of which could have assumed the throne in 1093 after Malcolm and his eldest, Edward, died. That was not to be the case, however. Malcolm's successor was Donald III, who swept in and laid siege to Edinburgh and Malcolm's family. Where did he come from? Let's look into that next time.

Margaret and Malcolm's Family

Margaret of Wessex and Malcolm III of Scotland had a large family that went on to influence Western Europe for another generation. Married in 1070, they started having children right away.

Their firstborn was Edward in 1071, in a departure from Scottish naming conventions (probably named for Margaret's father, Edward the Exile). He would have been the likely successor to Malcolm's throne, but he was killed along with Malcolm on 13 November 1093 at the Battle of Alnwick (this was the second battle named because it was near Alnwick; I mentioned the first here).

Edmund was also born about 1071 and likely named for Margaret's grandfather, King Edmund Ironside. When Malcolm died, Malcolm's brother Donald seized the throne as Donald I. Malcolm's remaining sons objected, and Edmund sided with Donald, making him the enemy of his siblings.

Another son, Ethelred, almost certainly named after Margaret's great-grandfather Æthelred the Unready, became the abbot of Dunkeld. He was possible a lay abbot, and not actually a churchman. The appointment gave him also extensive lands on both sides of the Firth of Forth. Legend says that he was with Margaret when she died.

Edgar (c.1074) became King of Scotland from 1097 to 1107.

Alexander (c.1078) became king after Edgar, reigning as Alexander I until 1124.

Edith, the first daughter, was born about 1080. She was sent to Romsey Abbey for education and became a nun—or did she? There was a question about that when the subject of marriage came up. The intended groom was a king, and that became a story in itself.

Mary, born in 1082, went with Edith to Romsey Abbey. Once Edith was married to a king, she wanted Mary to also have an advantageous marriage, and had her husband arrange it with Eustace III, Count of Boulogne. Mary died in 1116.

Their last child was David, who became king of Scotland from 1124 to 1153.

Margaret died in 1093, the same year that her husband and eldest son were killed in battle. Coincidence? Broken heart? Tomorrow we will look at her death and path to sainthood.

Margaret of Wessex

Margaret of Wessex (c.1045 - 16 November 1093) was born in Hungary while her family was exiled there. Her father was Edward the Exile, heir to the throne of England but sent away as a babe after Cnut conquered the country. Her father had been sent to the court of the Swedish king, Olof Skötkonung, and eventually made his way to Kiev. When grown, he traveled to Hungary and helped their King Andrew I achieve the throne. This gave the family a home in Hungary, where Margaret grew up in a very religious environment.

Her father was recalled to England as a potential successor to Edward the Confessor, and he brought the family with him. Edward died right after arrival in the land of his birth, and then the death of Edward the Confessor started a series of events that left the Exile's heir, Edgar Ætheling, unlikely to achieve the throne, though not for lack of trying. When Duke William II of Normandy succeeded at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and inevitably became King of England, Margaret and her family found a home in Northumbria.

The traditional story is that Margaret's mother, Agatha, decided to take her children back to the continent in 1068. A storm, however, drove them back to land, but farther north, where they were shipwrecked and given refuge by King Malcolm III of Scotland. Malcolm would have been in his late 30s, and Margaret in her early to mid-20s. He took a liking to her, and they were married in 1070. (The illustration is Malcolm greeting Margaret by a Victorian artist.)

Orderic Vitalis wrote that Malcolm had, in fact, traveled to England many years before to speak to Edward the Confessor and ask for his kinswoman's hand in marriage. If this meeting took place, the marriage was delayed for several years. It is possible that the marriage was arranged and then put off against Malcolm's intentions, which might explain Malcolm's plundering of Lindisfarne. Whatever the case may have been, Malcolm was at the time a widower with two sons and would have benefitted from linking himself to the English royal line.

The two had eight children, among which were three kings of Scotland and a queen of England. Tomorrow I'll tell you about their children's fortunes, and then we'll get to her sainthood.