Silchester

The Romans favoured urban development; the Celtic inhabitants of this island did not. This is practically the only conclusion you can reach upon visiting the site of Silchester. Yet this cannot be entirely true. Urban settlements like London, Colchester, St Albans, Winchester, Dorchester and Cirencester survive today upon their Roman foundations but Silchester, a once large and important town turned into a ghost town after the Romans left in 400AD.

In Roman times it was known as Calleva Atrebatum. The tributes were the dominant tribe of the region and it is likely that the Prince of the Atrebates was a client-king of the Romans and Silcheter may have been his capital.

It was probably founded as an iron age fort in the first century BC before the Romans arrived. After Claudius completed the conquest Roman influence was exerted and the less-than-regular distribution of buildings established by the Celts was replaced by a grid street pattern. Defensive walls were constructed around the entire perimeter of the town and about 70 AD an amphitheatre was constructed just outside the town walls.

Once the Romans departed from this island Silchester declined in importance and was abandoned. Archaeologists have discovered wells that were deliberately filled in so the abandonment was conscious rather than accidental. nobody really knows why but possibly the development of Reading, favoured by the saxons, made Silchester redundant. In any case, the centralised structure of the Roman empire collapsed in England after their departure. Centralised villa agriculture gave way to smaller independent homesteads and the absence of a taxation system diminished the infrastructure.

The site was first investigated by  the Reverend J.G. Joyce, vicar at Stratfield Saye between 1864 and 1878. Between 1890 and 1909 the Society of Antiquaries conducted a thorough archaeological excavation ad developed the town plan based upon the stone foundations. Later archaeologists have speculated that these early interventions may have destroyed evidence of wooden buildings. Be that as it may, the fact that Silchester was not subject to later development as other towns were means that a more complete picture of Silchester emerges than, say, St Albans. More recent investigations have been conducted by professional archaeologists under the auspices of the University of Reading.

The death of William Rufus - accident or murder?

Hunting accidents were a feature of life in the 11th century just as they are today in an age of high visibility jackets. Notoriously Vice President Cheney shot one of his friends while they were out hunting only a few years ago. There are any number of incidents that go unreported unless the injury is fatal.

It does appear that contemporaries and for many years after took the death of William to be a pure accident. the first account, in the Anglo Saxpon Chronoicle, merely says this: In the morning after Lammas King William when hunting was shot by an arrow by one of his own men." Later accounts add detail, that he was shot through the heart and that the culprit was Walter Tirel, Count of Poix.  The fullest account was written by Orderic, writing about 1135. It is possible that Orderic could have had access to eye-witness accounts and he would almost certainly have heard secondary tales. Orderic does not condemn Tirel and saw the killing of the king as God's judgement. Contemporaries agreed, and judged William for his depraved lifestyle and his tendency to tyranny. The monks at Winchester only agreed to bury the body under protest.

Having said that, two men left the scene in almost indecent hate. Walter Tirel fled for France and William's younger brother Henry made speed to Wnchester to secure the treasury and have himself proclaimed king before his oldest brother Robert, duke of Normandy, could set sail from northern France. Henry held on to his kingdom for the next 35 years. The possible involvement of Walter Tirel was officially ignored. Henry neither punished nor rewarded him and both men lived to die in old age.

It is only later historians who have seen darker motives behind the death of William II. Cui bono? as Cicero asked. Who benefited from William's death? That answer is plain enough - Henry. This had led some to speculate that the death was no accident and that Henry engineered it on his own behalf. But there it remains, as simply speculation. There is no contemporary evidence to suggest that it was other than an accident and nobody in Henry's lifetime or after raised this thought. In any case, even if there were a conspiracy of sorts, its effectiveness would depend upon many uncertain factors - moving targets, men being out of position, the behaviour of Tirel or other men designated to do the deed - that its outcome would have been most unpredictable. In addition, we might wonder that if Henry had indeed planned this deed, he might have found it politic not to be present in the hunting party.

This may be one conspiracy theory that has nothig to support it,

The Death of William Rufus

The rules of primogeniture were not generally agreed when William II succeeded his father to the English throne in 1087. His elder brother Robert, his credentials already burnished by being a successful crusader, would not have encountered any objections had he asserted his claim to the English throne, yet when he did so he had already been pre-empted by his younger brother.

William knew what he was doing. While his father lay near death at Rouen, William readied a boat for himself at Bonneville sur Toques on the coast and soon after the last rites were spoken over his father's body made haste to England where he secured the treasury at Winchester and successfully lobbied support for his candidacy as the next king of England. He clearly convinced Archbishop Lanfranc, the key player in this drama, and William was crowned in westminster Abbey on the 26th September, just three weeks after his father's last breath. Later it was given out that William I had willed the kingdom to his second son. Whether true or not William had possession and was not to be dislodged until a fatal arrow killed him in the New Forest in 1100. Robert's whereabouts at this crucial time are unknown. When he did get report of his father's death and returned to Normandy there was no objection to his assuming the dukedom. England however was lost to him.

The death of William Rufus, by an arrow, was sudden and violent. He was hunting in the New Forest and it is presumed, was shot accidentally. The date was August 2nd 1100.

The earliest account of this death is found in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle:

In the morning after Lammas king William when hunting was shot by an arrow by one of his own men.

The man who shot the arrow is not named and these are the bald facts. Later chroniclers, writing between 15 and 30 years after the event supply more detail as well as some moralising. Overall, despite differences in tone and variation in detail, the accounts are relatively consistent and this story can be summarised here.

The hunting party set out from Brockenhurst late in the morning possibly because there had been some heavy drinking the night before. In the party were William's close friends Robert FitzHaimo, William of Breteuil, and some of the barons who were in evidence in Winchester during the aftermath - Walter Giffard, Gerald Bishop of Hereford, Henry earl of Warwick, Simon earl of Northampton, William Giffard, Robert de Montfort and Roger Bigot. There were more, but many made themselves scarce after the event and their names have not been recorded. One man who was almost certainly there was the youngest son of the Conqueror, Henry. Another man present who plays a leading part in this story was Walter Tirel, Count of Poix in France whom was being courted by William to help him a against the king of France.

The hunting party spread out as was customary to various parts of the forest attended by huntsmen and other servants who would chase down and finish off the game. Tirel was apparently close to William and later in the day when the sun was low (in August this wood be evening) Tirel loosed a shot at a stag that was running across. He missed, or it may have glanced off the stag's back, and the arrow his William who was then in the line of fire in the heart. It was reported that he broke the arrow himself but he then fell front forward on it and this killed him.

Once they had assessed what had happened every man suddenly had his own agenda. Walter Tirel quickly made his escape for France. he was not detained. Henry quickly headed for Winchester to secure the treasury. In this he encountered some opposition from William of Breteuil but he faced him down and gained sufficient support to obtain his objective. He was crowned only a few days later in Westminster, on August 5th, by the only available senior cleric, Maurice the Bishop of London. Like his brother before him Henry was able to act swiftly to secure the crown for himself.

In the meantime the former  king was subject to astonishing neglect. It was left to some peasants in the New Forest to tie the dead king onto a litter and drag him to Winchester.It is said that he bled along the route, which would suggest that he was still alive, but this embellishment to the story may be fancy. At Wimchester there was no Bishop because William had left the see vacant and the internment service was conducted in a perfunctory manner by Prior Godfrey who was known to have disapproved of William's lifestyle. He was buried in the Old Minster.

He was not mourned.

The Rufus Stone is said to mark the spot where William fell. It was set up in 1745 near Canterton to mark the site which had been traditional since Charles II visited there. The earliest reports suggest that the fatal shooting was closer to the hunting lodge which was though to be near Brockenhurst. In the 1530s John Leland reported that its had happened at or near Througham which may be identified with Beaulieu. The exact spot was not marked at the time and in the scramble of the barons after the event to secure their own interests it is unlikely that the place was given a second thought.

St Swithun

Like most figures from the distant past of 9th century England Swithun is known of, but very little is known about him. He became bishop of Winchester in 852 or 3 and he died at some time between 862 and 865. His signature appears on three surviving charters: one from 833 which he signs as Swithunus presbyter regis Egberti, another from 838  in which he is represented as Swithunus diaconus, and a third from 862 which he signs as  Swithunus episcopus. From these unpromising dates we might conjecture that Swithun was born sometime after 808.

We can assume also that he was a respected bishop and an influential figure for his time. His later canonisation and the existence of a number of churches in Hampshire dedicated to him would suggest as much. He was obviously well remembered 100 years after his death because when the new minster at Winchester was built by Aethelwold, the reforming bishop of Winchester, it was dedicated to St Swithun and his body was transferred to the new basilica on 15th July 971.

This date gave rise to the legend that Swithun was annoyed that his grave had been disturbed and that whatever weather prevailed on July 15th would continue for the next 40 days. thus if it rained on St Swithun's day you could be sure that this would continue for the rest of the summer. Likewise if the weather was fine, but people tended to remember only the heavy rainfall. Interestingly enough there is a scientific basis for this phenomenon and it depends on where the gulf stream settles. If the line of the stream is to the south then Atlantic storms prevail; if the line of the stream passes further north then usually high pressure zones maintain sunny weather.

The legend itself may have its origin in a heavy downpour on July 15th in 1315 as there is no evidence of it in any writing before this date.

The dedication by Aethewold helped to create the lasting fame of Swithun. Within a few years a biography of Swithun the Vita S. Swithuni appeared and became the definitive source document for later writers. About 50 years later Goscelin of St Bertin's, a monk added some more biographical detail He wrote that Swithun was born in the reign of Egbert of Wessex, and was ordained priest by Helmstan, bishop of Winchester (838-c. 852). His fame reached the king's ears, and he appointed him tutor of his son, Æthelwulf, and was much favoured by the king.


Swithun was appointed bishop of Winchester, to which see he was consecrated by Archbishop Ceolnoth. In his new office he was known for his piety and his zeal in building new churches or restoring old ones. At his request Æthelwulf gave the tenth of his royal lands to the Church. Swithun made his diocesan journeys on foot; when he gave a banquet he invited the poor and not the rich. William of Malmesbury adds that, if Bishop Ealhstan of Sherborne was Æthelwulf's minister for temporal matters, Swithun was the minister for spiritual matters.
Each new writer found something ti add to the legend. Thomas Rudborne in the 15th century suggested that Swithun accompanied Alfred to Rome in 856.

As with any medieval saint there are reports of miracles. Some workmen, for idle amusement, smashed a basket full of eggs on a Winchester bridge. She prayed to St Swithun and they were miraculously restored.

 Thus Canon Busby writes: “She had been accused of unchastity in association with Bishop Alwyn of Winchester. In order to prove her innocence she was obliged to undergo the ordeal of walking over nine red-hot ploughshares placed on the pavement of the nave of the Cathedral. The Cathedral annalist says: ‘The news was spread throughout the Kingdom that the Queen was to undergo this ordeal; and such was the throng of people who flocked to Winchester, that so vast a concourse on one day was never seen before. The King himself, Saint Edward, came to Winchester; nor did a single noble of the Kingdom absent himself, except Archbishop Robert, who feigned illness and, being inimical to the Queen, had poisoned the King’s mind against her, so that if her innocence were proved he might be able to make his escape without difficulty. The pavement of the church being swept, there was placed upon it nine red-hot ploughshares, over which a short prayer was said, and then the Queen’s shoes and stockings were drawn off, and laying aside her mantle and putting on her veil, with her garments girded closely round round her, between two bishops, on either hand, she was conducted to the torture. The bishops who led her wept, and, though they were more terrified than she was, they encouraged her not to be afraid. All persons who were in the church wept and there was a general exclamation “O Saint Swithun, Saint Swithun, help her!” The people cried with great vehemence that Saint Swithun must hasten to the rescue. The Queen prayed: St. Swithun, rescue me from the fire that is prepared for me. Then followed a miracle. Guided by the Bishops she walked over the red-hot ploughshares, she felt neither the naked iron nor the fire.’”

St Swithun continued to be patronized throughout the middle ages but by the 16th century he was less popular. Even so, when Sir Thomas Wriothesley siezed the assets of the church and demolished the shrine of St Swithun, there were careful to do it overnight for fear of any backlash.