Posts in Category: History Research
Alfred’s Tower: The Story Behind a Mysterious Somerset Monument
Listen to the audio recording of this article here:
This blog post is essential reading for anyone interested in the history of the tower on Kingsettle Hill because, surprisingly, very little information is available on the internet.
During the summer, we stayed at the tranquil Kingsettle Campsite in South Brewham, near the charming Somerset town of Bruton.
Driving up Kingsettle Hill, we noticed an extraordinary building rising above the landscape. It was far taller than anything I had expected to encounter in the Somerset countryside and, on investigating, I discovered an enormous triangular brick tower.
There is a heavily weathered stone inscription above the entrance, but very little information nearby explaining what the tower was, why it had been built or why such an enormous monument stood on this particular hill.
With some difficulty I managed to decipher enough of the inscription to realise that the tower was dedicated to King Alfred the Great, whom I knew to have been an important early medieval monarch. That discovery led me into a much larger historical investigation.
The tower is triangular in plan, with a round turret at each corner and a spiral staircase climbing through one of them to the roof. Battlements crown the main walls, while a stone statue of Alfred stands in a Gothic niche above the entrance and inscription. At approximately 160 feet high, the structure dominates Kingsettle Hill and can be seen from a considerable distance.[1]
Alfred’s Tower is conventionally described as a landscape “folly”, although in this case the term can be misleading if it suggests a building without serious meaning. My research has concluded that the tower was originally conceived as a deliberate historical monument to Alfred.
King Alfred the Great
Alfred of Wessex was an Anglo-Saxon king who reigned from 871 until 899. He occupies a unique place among England’s native-born rulers in being remembered by the enduring epithet “the Great”. Medieval historian Matthew Firth describes Alfred as “the only native-born English ruler to have gained the byname ‘the Great’.”[2]
Interestingly, Alfred was not known by this title during his lifetime. Firth’s recent research has demonstrated, however, that the tradition is considerably older than was once believed. References to Alfred as “the Great” can be traced into the medieval period and securely to at least the thirteenth century.[2]
Why, then, was an enormous monument to this ninth-century king erected on a Somerset hill almost nine hundred years after his death?
Henry Hoare II and Stourhead
The answer begins with Henry Hoare II (1705–1785), the wealthy banker and landowner responsible for developing the celebrated landscape at nearby Stourhead. Hoare inherited Stourhead from his father in 1725 and transformed its landscape through an ambitious programme of planting, architecture and garden design.[3]
Alfred’s Tower eventually became one of the most dramatic features associated with this landscape, although it stands some distance from Stourhead House itself, on Kingsettle Hill in Somerset. The location was not accidental.
Why Kingsettle Hill?
Henry Hoare believed that Kingsettle Hill was associated with one of the most dramatic episodes in Alfred’s life.
By 878 Alfred’s position was exceptionally precarious. Viking armies had already conquered or profoundly disrupted several of the major Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and Guthrum’s sudden occupation of Chippenham forced Alfred from his royal centre into the marshlands of Somerset. The events commemorated by Alfred’s Tower therefore belong not simply to another battle in Alfred’s reign, but to the extraordinary recovery by which he rebuilt his forces, defeated Guthrum at Edington and preserved Wessex as an independent kingdom.[4]
In 878 Alfred was fighting for the survival of his kingdom against the Viking army commanded by Guthrum. Driven into the Somerset marshes, Alfred established a stronghold at Athelney, a raised area within the wetlands of the Somerset Levels near the modern village of East Lyng. From this defensible refuge west of Kingsettle Hill, Alfred began the recovery that would culminate in his victory at Edington.[4][5]
He subsequently emerged from Athelney and summoned his forces. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that men from Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire gathered around him at a place called Egbert’s Stone before the army advanced towards Edington.[4] Asser, writing during Alfred’s lifetime, gives a closely corresponding account and places Egbert’s Stone in the eastern part of Selwood.[5]
The gathering at Egbert’s Stone was therefore not simply a geographical stopping point on Alfred’s route. It was the place at which the surviving West Saxon forces rallied to their king after one of the most dangerous periods of his reign. Men came to Alfred from Somerset, Wiltshire and part of Hampshire before the restored army moved onwards towards Edington. The identification of Egbert’s Stone was consequently central to Henry Hoare’s interpretation of Kingsettle Hill: if Hoare’s local tradition was correct, the tower stood at the place associated with the moment when Alfred re-emerged from refuge and once again gathered an army around him.[4][5]
There Alfred defeated Guthrum in one of the decisive battles of his reign.
The exact location of Egbert’s Stone has never been established with certainty. Kingsettle Hill is one of the places subsequently associated with Alfred’s muster, and Henry Hoare clearly believed in this identification. That belief explains the location of the tower, even if it cannot prove that Alfred actually stood on the hill.
Voltaire and the Inspiration for Alfred’s Tower
Remarkably, Henry Hoare’s own correspondence allows us to identify the moment at which the idea for Alfred’s Tower emerged. On 23 October 1762 Hoare wrote to his daughter Susanna, Lady Bruce. He had been reading Voltaire’s history and was particularly impressed by the French philosopher’s assessment of Alfred. Voltaire wrote: “I do not know whether there has ever been upon the earth a man more worthy of the respect of posterity than Alfred the Great, who rendered these services to his country.”[6]
The passage can be traced to Voltaire’s Abrégé de l’Histoire universelle depuis Charlemagne jusques à Charlequint, published at The Hague in 1753. It was subsequently incorporated into his Essai sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations, in the chapter devoted to ninth-century England and Alfred the Great.[6]
Hoare’s response to what he had read was remarkably direct. “Out of gratitude to Him”, he proposed erecting a tower on Kingsettle Hill, at the place where he believed Alfred had raised his standard after emerging from Athelney.[7]
Hoare’s 1762 letter is the earliest surviving evidence for the conception of Alfred’s Tower and identifies Alfred himself as the reason for the monument. The documentary evidence therefore allows us to say something unusually precise about the monument: Alfred’s Tower originated directly from Henry Hoare’s admiration for Alfred the Great, intensified by reading Voltaire’s extraordinary praise of the Anglo-Saxon king.
One question remains unresolved. Voltaire supplied Hoare with the immediate inspiration for the monument, but he did not identify Kingsettle Hill as the place where Alfred had raised his standard. Hoare must therefore have obtained that local identification from another source or tradition. I have not yet been able to establish where it came from. Whether it derived from an earlier antiquarian theory, local tradition or another historical work remains an open question.
Hoare’s First Proposed Inscription
The idea developed rapidly. On 18 November 1762, less than a month after his letter to Lady Bruce, Hoare wrote to his son-in-law Lord Bruce proposing an inscription for the tower.[8]. It began: “In memory of Alfred the Great, The Founder of the English Monarchy” and described Alfred as: “The Giver of most excellent Laws, Jurys, the Bulwark of English Liberty”.[8]. Hoare also praised Alfred’s naval achievements, writing that through his courage and attention to increasing England’s naval force he had protected the country from foreign invasion and extended its trade.[8]
The proposed inscription then made an explicit connection between Alfred’s Britain and Hoare’s own. Hoare wrote that Britons should revere Alfred because, following his example and under Divine Providence, they had defeated their enemies that year by land and sea in Europe, Asia, Africa and America. This was a reference to Britain’s extraordinary military successes during the Seven Years’ War.[8]. Alfred’s Tower was therefore developing into something more complicated than a simple memorial to a dead king. Alfred remained its central inspiration, but Hoare was using him to connect the achievements of Anglo-Saxon England with the Britain of his own age.
Hoare was not converting the tower into a memorial to the Seven Years’ War. Alfred remained its subject. Rather, Hoare was using Alfred’s achievements as a historical parallel through which to interpret Britain’s successes in his own age. The distinction matters because the tower had already been conceived as a monument to Alfred before the war had ended.
Was It Built to Celebrate George III?
Modern descriptions frequently state that Alfred’s Tower commemorated both the end of the Seven Years’ War and the accession of George III in 1760. The surviving correspondence requires a more careful distinction.[1][9] The Seven Years’ War connection can be demonstrated directly from Hoare’s proposed inscription of November 1762.[8]
The initial idea for the tower, however, had already appeared in his letter of 23 October, before the preliminary peace agreement of 3 November 1762. His stated inspiration at that point was Alfred and Voltaire.[7] I have not found an equivalent statement in the correspondence examined in which Hoare says that he conceived Alfred’s Tower specifically to commemorate George III’s accession.
On the evidence presently identified, George III’s accession is therefore a later interpretation, not a documented reason given by Hoare for conceiving the tower. The fact that the claim is repeated in modern heritage accounts does not substitute for contemporary evidence from Hoare himself. The evidence therefore suggests a progression in Hoare’s thinking: admiration for Alfred inspired the tower; Alfred’s supposed association with Kingsettle Hill determined its location; and contemporary British military success was then incorporated into its political meaning.
The Tower Takes Shape
Henry Flitcroft, the architect closely associated with a number of buildings at Stourhead, is credited with the architectural design.[1][9] Construction did not immediately follow Hoare’s first proposal. By 28 April 1770 the tower was still unfinished. Hoare wrote to Lady Bruce: “I hope it will be finished in as happy Times to this Isle as Alfred finished his Life of Glory in then shall I depart in peace.”[10] This is particularly valuable evidence because it places Hoare directly within the story while construction was taking place.
Contemporary evidence allows us to go further than simply saying that the tower existed by 1772. The Annual Register for that year reported that the “finishing stone was laid” on the tower erected by Henry Hoare “in memory of King Alfred”. It described the brick tower, Alfred’s statue and the inscription above its entrance.[11] The report provides valuable near-contemporary confirmation both of the tower’s completion and of the purpose for which contemporaries understood Hoare to have erected it.
The resulting structure was extraordinary: a vast triangular brick tower approximately 160 feet, or 49 metres, high, with Chilmark stone architectural dressings and a statue of Alfred above its entrance.[1]. A contemporary 1772 account described the tower as 155 feet high; modern sources generally give approximately 160 feet (49 metres).[11][12]
The Inscription
The original stone inscription is heavily weathered and difficult to read. It therefore seems remiss of the National Trust not to have provided an information board for visitors with a readable inscription. The inscription eventually placed upon the tower reads:
“ALFRED THE GREAT
AD 879 ON THIS SUMMIT
ERECTED HIS STANDARD
AGAINST DANISH INVADERS
TO HIM WE OWE THE ORIGIN OF JURIES
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MILITIA
THE CREATION OF A NAVAL FORCE
ALFRED THE LIGHT OF A BENIGHTED AGE
WAS A PHILOSOPHER AND A CHRISTIAN
THE FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE
THE FOUNDER OF THE ENGLISH
MONARCHY AND LIBERTY”[12]
The final inscription differs significantly from the much longer version Hoare had contemplated in November 1762. Most noticeably, the explicit reference to contemporary British military victories disappeared. The monument as finally presented to the visitor speaks entirely of Alfred.
The final editorial decision made the monument more exclusively Alfredian, not less. Whatever contemporary political comparisons had entered Hoare’s thinking during the development of the proposed inscription, they were omitted from the words ultimately placed upon the completed tower.
The inscription reflects the eighteenth-century image of Alfred as not merely a warrior king but a foundational figure in English government and liberty. It attributes to him the origin of juries, a militia and naval power, and presents him simultaneously as warrior, philosopher, Christian ruler and father of his people. Whether every institutional claim can be sustained historically is a separate question; what matters here is what these words reveal about the Alfred whom Henry Hoare believed he was commemorating.
Why Does It Say 879?
The date on the tower creates another historical puzzle. The inscription says that Alfred erected his standard on the summit in AD 879. The chronology now accepted for Alfred’s emergence from Athelney, his muster at Egbert’s Stone and his victory at Edington places these events in 878.[4][5] The 879 date therefore belongs to the eighteenth-century understanding of Alfred’s chronology rather than the dating generally accepted today.
The surviving eighteenth-century evidence reveals an additional complication. The contemporary account of the completion of Alfred’s Tower published in 1772 stated that Alfred had erected his standard on the site in 871.[11] That date differs both from the 879 subsequently recorded on the monument and from the 878 chronology accepted today. It suggests that the chronology associated with Alfred’s supposed muster on Kingsettle Hill was itself not entirely stable in the eighteenth century. Why the finished inscription came to specify 879 remains a question worthy of further investigation.
It is a useful reminder that Alfred’s Tower is not itself a ninth-century historical record. It is an eighteenth-century interpretation of ninth-century history. That distinction runs through almost every aspect of the monument.
Who Actually Built Alfred’s Tower?
One of the most surprising discoveries from my investigation concerns the people who physically constructed it. Henry Hoare II is remembered as the patron. Henry Flitcroft is remembered as the architect. But the builders have largely disappeared.
A structure of this scale required an organised workforce and an extensive supply network. Brickmakers or merchants supplied an enormous quantity of bricks. Stone was quarried and dressed. Bricklayers and masons erected the walls. Carpenters were needed for floors and scaffolding. Materials had to be transported to the summit of Kingsettle Hill, and somebody must have supervised the work. Yet the identities of these people are absent from the readily accessible history of Alfred’s Tower.
This is particularly intriguing because the surviving Hoare and Stourhead archive is extensive, and Henry Hoare’s correspondence from 1760–1781 has been published by the Wiltshire Record Society.[13] The Hoare family of Stourhead papers survive principally within collection 383 at the Wiltshire & Swindon History Centre.[14]
It would be wrong to conclude that the original accounts have necessarily been destroyed. Bills, vouchers, ledgers or correspondence identifying the craftsmen may still survive within the archival material. For the moment, however, we know the wealthy man who commissioned Alfred’s Tower and the architect who designed it, while the people who physically constructed one of Somerset’s most extraordinary buildings have largely vanished from its story.
A Monument Recorded as a War Memorial
There is another curious aspect to Alfred’s Tower. The Imperial War Museums includes it in the War Memorials Register as WMR 68253 and classifies the commemorated conflict as the Seven Years’ War.[12]
Hoare’s correspondence certainly shows that he compared Alfred’s military achievements with Britain’s contemporary victories. But this should not be confused with the reason for which the monument was conceived. Hoare had already proposed the tower “out of gratitude” to Alfred before the Seven Years’ War had ended, and the final inscription is entirely concerned with Alfred.[7][8]
The IWM classification therefore appears to conflate the contemporary political context in which Hoare invoked Alfred with the primary commemorative subject of the tower. Alfred’s Tower was conceived as a monument to Alfred.
The Modern Record Is Surprisingly Confused
Having traced this history, I returned to the modern descriptions of Alfred’s Tower and found a surprising number of problems.
The National Trust currently describes it in one place as a 160ft “(59m)” tower “built in 1722”. Both figures are wrong: 160 feet is approximately 49 metres, while the tower belongs to the 1760s–1772 building programme.[15] The same National Trust page calls Henry Hoare II “Sir Henry Hoare II”, although he was not a baronet, and states as fact that Alfred raised his standard on this particular spot in 878, when the precise location of Egbert’s Stone remains uncertain.[15]
Historic England presents further problems. Its individual Grade I listing dates the tower to 1766, while its separate registration of the Stourhead landscape says it was completed in the “late 1770s”.[1][9] Contemporary evidence shows that the completed monument was already being described in print in 1772.[11]
Historic England also transcribes one of the most memorable lines of the inscription incorrectly. It records: “Alfred the Lion of a (benighted) Age”.[1]
The inscription actually reads: “ALFRED THE LIGHT OF A BENIGHTED AGE”.[12]
The correct wording is independently preserved by the Imperial War Museums and historian Simon Keynes.[12][16]
Conclusion
When I first saw Alfred’s Tower from the road at Kingsettle Hill, I knew almost nothing about it. Some basic searching on my phone found a Google page that included none of the history of the monument, and didn’t mention Alfred at all. Similarly, the National Trust pages lacked important detail and contained inaccuracies. The lack of information at the monument itself made the building seem even more mysterious. The documentary trail reveals a far richer story.
We can trace Henry Hoare II reading Voltaire in 1762 and being struck by his extraordinary praise of Alfred. We can see Hoare deciding, “out of gratitude”, to erect a tower at a place he believed was associated with Alfred’s recovery from Athelney. Within weeks he was drafting an elaborate inscription linking Alfred’s achievements with Britain’s own military victories. Eight years later he was still writing anxiously about the unfinished building, hoping that he would live to see it completed.
The contemporary evidence now allows the story to be followed still further. In 1772 the “finishing stone” was reported as having been laid on a tower expressly described at the time as erected by Henry Hoare “in memory of King Alfred”. The completed public inscription removed the explicit references to Britain’s contemporary victories which had appeared in Hoare’s earlier draft and concentrated instead upon Alfred: his resistance to invasion, juries, militia, naval force, philosophy, Christianity, his people, monarchy and liberty.[11][12]
The surviving evidence therefore gives us an unusually clear answer to the question which began this investigation. Henry Hoare did not originally conceive the tower as a generic landscape ornament or as a memorial to the Seven Years’ War; he conceived it for Alfred. The contemporary war subsequently provided Hoare with a political parallel through which he interpreted Alfred’s achievements, but Alfred was the inspiration for the tower before the war had ended, and Alfred remained the subject of the monument when it was finally completed.
Nor has the investigation produced contemporary evidence that George III’s accession was a reason for its conception. On the evidence presently identified, that interpretation belongs to the later history of the monument rather than to the explanation Henry Hoare himself gave when he first proposed it.
The tower that finally emerged was therefore more than a decorative folly. It was Henry Hoare’s interpretation of Alfred the Great: warrior, Christian, philosopher, defender of his people and symbolic ancestor of the England Hoare believed himself to inhabit.
Not every historical claim made by the monument can be accepted literally. We cannot establish that Kingsettle Hill was the site of Egbert’s Stone. The inscription dates Alfred’s muster to 879 rather than 878. Some of the institutions attributed to Alfred reflect later traditions about his reign. But these discrepancies are themselves part of the history of Alfred’s Tower. The monument tells us not only how the eighteenth century remembered Alfred, but how powerful his reputation had become almost nine hundred years after his death.
Perhaps the greatest sadness in this story is that a tower erected to preserve the memory of Alfred has itself acquired a confused modern history. Dates have been misreported, its inscription has been mistranscribed, interpretations have hardened into facts, and the identities of the people who physically built it have disappeared from the readily accessible story.
What began for me as the accidental discovery of a mysterious tower on a Somerset hill therefore became an investigation into several different layers of history. There is the ninth-century story of Alfred himself and the extraordinary recovery from Athelney which culminated at Edington. There is the eighteenth-century story of Henry Hoare, reading Voltaire and deciding that Alfred remained worthy of the gratitude of posterity. There is the unresolved question of the older source or tradition which persuaded Hoare that Kingsettle Hill was connected with Alfred’s muster. And there is the modern history of the monument, in which later interpretations have sometimes been repeated as though they were established contemporary facts.
Standing beneath the tower today, therefore, we are looking at two histories at once: the extraordinary story of Alfred’s recovery in 878, and the equally fascinating story of how an eighteenth-century Englishman decided that Alfred’s memory was important enough to preserve in brick and stone on a Somerset hilltop.
Footnotes
[1] Historic England, ‘Alfred’s Tower’, National Heritage List for England, List Entry 1175610. The listing describes the tower as triangular in plan, built in Flemish-bond brickwork with Chilmark stone dressings and circular corner turrets, and attributes it to Henry Flitcroft. It also gives the disputed date 1766 and mistranscribes “LIGHT” as “Lion”. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1175610
[2] Matthew Firth, ‘What’s in a Name? Tracing the Origins of Alfred’s “the Great”’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 139, Issue 596 (February 2024), pp. 1–32, published online 21 May 2024. DOI: 10.1093/ehr/ceae078.
[3] Historic England, ‘Stourhead’, National Heritage List for England, Registered Park and Garden, List Entry 1000471. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000471
[4] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for AD 878. The Chronicle records Alfred’s refuge at Athelney and his subsequent journey to Egbert’s Stone east of Selwood, where the men of Somerset, Wiltshire and that part of Hampshire which remained unconquered came to meet him, before the army moved to Æglea and Edington.
[5] Asser, Life of King Alfred, account of the campaign of 878. Asser similarly records Alfred leaving Athelney and proceeding to Egbert’s Stone in the eastern part of Selwood before advancing against the Viking army.
[6] Voltaire, Abrégé de l’Histoire universelle depuis Charlemagne jusques à Charlequint, Tome Premier (The Hague: Jean Neaulme, 1753); subsequently incorporated into Essai sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations, Chapter 26, ‘De l’Angleterre vers le neuvième siècle. Alfred le Grand’.
[7] Henry Hoare II to Susanna, Lady Bruce, 23 October 1762, quoted and discussed in Kenneth Woodbridge, Landscape and Antiquity: Aspects of English Culture at Stourhead 1718 to 1838 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 53. Hoare states that, after reading Voltaire, he proposed “out of gratitude to Him” to erect a tower on Kingsettle Hill where he believed Alfred had set up his standard.
[8] Henry Hoare II to Lord Bruce, 18 November 1762, cited and discussed in Woodbridge, Landscape and Antiquity, pp. 53–55. Hoare’s proposed inscription begins “In memory of Alfred the Great, The Founder of the English Monarchy”, describes Alfred as “The Giver of most excellent Laws, Jurys, the Bulwark of English Liberty”, and subsequently compares Alfred’s achievements with Britain’s victories during the Seven Years’ War.
[9] Historic England, ‘Stourhead’, National Heritage List for England, List Entry 1000471. The modern entry states that the tower commemorates both the accession of George III and the end of the Seven Years’ War. No equivalent contemporary statement by Henry Hoare identifying George III’s accession as the reason for the tower has so far been identified. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000471
[10] Henry Hoare II to Lady Bruce, 28 April 1770, cited in Woodbridge, Landscape and Antiquity, p. 61.
[11] The Annual Register, or a View of the History, Politicks, and Literature for the Year 1772, Vol. XV (London, 1773), contemporary notice reporting that the “finishing stone was laid” on the tower erected by Henry Hoare “in memory of King Alfred”. The report describes the tower as a brick building 155 feet high, with Alfred’s statue above the doorway and an inscription beneath it. A contemporary reproduction of substantially the same report appeared in The Virginia Gazette, 31 December 1772. The latter gives the then-reported Alfredian date as 871.
[12] Imperial War Museums, ‘King Alfred’s Tower’, War Memorials Register, WMR 68253. The register gives the height as approximately 49 metres, transcribes “ALFRED THE LIGHT OF A BENIGHTED AGE”, and classifies the commemorated war as the Seven Years’ War. https://memorials.iwm.org.uk/memorial/68253
[13] Dudley Dodd (ed.), The Letters of Henry Hoare, 1760–1781, Wiltshire Record Society, Vol. 71 (Chippenham: Wiltshire Record Society, 2018).
[14] Wiltshire & Swindon History Centre, Hoare family of Stourhead papers, principally collection 383. The surviving archive includes extensive family, estate and financial material relating to Stourhead. https://calmview.wiltshire.gov.uk/
[15] National Trust, ‘Alfred’s Tower’. The current page describes the tower as “160ft (59m)” high, says it was “built in 1722”, refers to “Sir Henry Hoare II”, and states that Alfred raised his standard there in 878. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/wiltshire/alfreds-tower/
[16] Simon Keynes, ‘The Cult of King Alfred the Great’, Anglo-Saxon England, Vol. 28 (1999), pp. 225–356. DOI: 10.1017/S0263675100002337.
The Cross of St George or the Cross of Christ?
Has there been a deliberate cover-up by historians to obfuscate the significance of the red cross on a white background, now known as the Cross of St George? Ancient documents called it the Cross of Christ and say it was first given to Arviragus, Prince of the royal Silures of Britaine, as his coat of arms by Joseph of Arimathea when he baptised him at Glastonbury in AD 36.
St George’s Day is celebrated on 23 April, and is the traditional feast day of England’s patron saint, still honoured by the Church of England and other Christian Traditions today. Historically, St George became closely associated with England in the medieval period, and his day came to stand for English pride in a similar way that St Andrew’s Day does for Scotland or St David’s Day for Wales.
The day has symbolic cultural importance because England’s national flag is called the Cross of St George, representing English identity and heritage. Despite its significance, the official Church story of St George offers no rationale for the existence of the Cross of St George in England, which is curious, so I decided to do my own research.
The Roman Catholics, troubled by the fact that Christianity first came to ancient Britaine before Rome, created a false narrative in the early AD 300s, linking St George to a Roman soldier who defied an imperial edict to sacrifice to the pagan gods, creating a smoke screen to obscure the British origin of Christianity. https://thenationalcv.org.uk/More%203%20Joseph%20of%20Arimathea%20came%20to%20Britain.pdf
A review of ancient historical documents by George F Jowett demonstrates that the long cross on a silver-white background was adopted by the ‘British Church’ long before St George was born.
In his book ‘The Drama of the Lost Disciples’ published in 1961, Jowett quotes from the ancient British Chronicles, written by Nennius in the early 800s and Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1136, which state that Joseph of Arimethea converted and baptised Arviragus to ‘The Way’ (early Christianity) in AD 36 and “gave him a shield of silver white, a crosse and long” as a sign for all nations to know.
This was later confirmed by John Hardyng (Harding) (1378 – 1465):
“Joseph converted this King Arviragus By his preaching to know ye laws divine And baptized him as write hath Nennius The chronicler in Brytain tongue full fyne An to Christian laws made hym inclyne And gave him then a shield of silver white A cross and long, and overthwart full perfecte. These armes were used throughout all Brytain. For a common syne, each man to know his nación, And thus his armes by Joesph Creación Full longafore Saint George was generate Were worshipt here of mykell elder date.”
Hardyng confirms that the ancient writer Nennius recorded that the long cross on a silver-white background was given to Arviragus by Joseph before it was associated with Saint George.
Joseph, later known as St Ilid, did this as a gesture of gratitude for the gift of land and sanctuary given by Arivagus in AD 36 to protect Joseph and the other twelve followers of ‘The Way’ when they sought refuge from persecution by the Romans. The land was known as the Sacred Isle of Avilion, being a Celtic word meaning ‘The Isle of Departed Spirits’, referring to the vast number of Christian saints buried there. It was later known as the Hallowed Acres of Christendom and is now known as Glastonbury. The disciples, the Arimathean Culdees, were protected from Roman persecution for 300 years by the British royal family, enabling them to preach and teach to many others.
The long cross was named the Cross of Christ and given to Arviragus as his coat of arms, which at that time was customarily worn on the shield of the chieftain. This is the first record of the cross being officially adopted as the symbol of a king and has remained a symbol of the sovereigns of Britain.
Jowett describes how the symbol of the Lion was added later:
“… the cross as the Christian symobl of Royal heraldry and given to Ariviragus by Joseph, the cross on the shield up to the present time has remained the special symbol of the sovereigns of Britain. In later times the Lion was superimposed on the shield, as shown today. The Lion was the emblem of Judah, Keeper of the Sancturary but, as Christ said, it would be taken away from them and given to another who would keep the Law. This symobol appearing on the British Royal Arms, with the cross, is significant. The cross denotes that the british were the first to accept Christ and by keeping the Law inherited the Kingdom of God taken from the nation of the Jews.“
Genesis 49:9-10 is the source of the lion as the emblem of Judah which is echoed again in Revelation 5:5.
In Matthew 21:43 Christ says that the kingdom will be taken from unfaithful leaders and given to others who will bear fruit. These were the ancient Kelts of the British Isles and the royal bloodline from King Arivagus. This family bor fruit because they protected Joseph of Aremethia and other disciples of The Way for over 300 years. These disciples built curches and took the teachings of Christ all over the world.
Arviragus carried the banner of the Cross through the most bitterly fought battles between the Britons and the Romans, making him the most famous Christian warrior in history, as recorded in early Christian and Roman records.
But Jowett explains that “he is entirely lost to the later histories” with some contemporary sources are attempting to bury the significance of Arviragus as the first Christian King by questioning his existence and referring to him as being a myth.
However, Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae (1136) writes about him being a contemporary of the emperor Claudius (41–54 AD).
Jowett provides further evidence when he references William Malmesbury, who wrote in 1126 AD/CE that:
“... twelve holy missionaries, with Joseph of Arimathea (who had buried the Lord) at their head, came over to Britain, preaching the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The king (Arviragus) of the country and his subjects … gave them for their habitation a certain island bordering on his region, covered with trees and bramble bushes and surrounded by marshes, called Ynis-wytrin.“
Ynys Witrin is the ancient Celtic name for the Isle of Avalon, meaning the Isle of Glass, now Glastonbury Tor. It is also known as Ynys yr Afalon, which means “The Isle of Avalon”.
It’s Never too Late to Fulfil your Calling
Are you ready for your divine appointment with destiny? Are you ready to discover why certain doors have closed throughout your life? God will open divine doorways for your mission in the latter years of your life. The Bible reminds us that it is never too late to be reminded of your calling.
Anna was an established prophetess who devoted her life to serving in the Temple. She stepped into her power at the age of 84, accepting an important role from God. She was the first to recognize the infant Jesus as the Messiah when he was presented by Mary and Joseph at the Temple in Jerusalem. Her story appears in the Gospel of Luke:
📖 Luke 2:36–38
“And Anna, daughter of Phanuel, out of the tribe of Asher, was a prophetess. She was advanced in years, and had lived with a husband for seven years after her marriage. And she was an eighty-four-year-old widow who did not depart from the Temple, serving with fastings and prayers, night and day. And standing nearby at the same hour, she gave thanks to the Lord, and she spoke about Him to all those waiting for redemption in Jerusalem.”
The Keys of the Kingdom Holy Bible, Translated by Christopher Sparkes 2022
www.keysofthekingdombible.com
Her spiritual authority seems to have developed over time, rooted in her many decades of faithful worship, prayer, and fasting after her seven year marriage ended. In all of those years, she kept going and did not doubt herself even as she aged.
We, too, can follow her example and ask God to bestow upon us our calling and Soul Purpose.
Key points about Anna:
- She was from the tribe of Asher.
- She was a widow, advanced in years (84 years old or possibly a widow for 84 years, depending on translation).
- She was a prophetess, indicating a recognized spiritual role.
- She spent her life in devotion and prayer at the temple.
- She was among the first to publicly proclaim Jesus as the redeemer.
- Anna and Simeon are both seen in this scene as devout people who recognized Jesus’ divine identity very early in His life.
Watch this video for further inspiration about Biblical figures who were chosen by God for service in the latter years of their life.
Ancient Perspectives on Treason and Justice
The Book of Esther from the Apocrypha raises important themes about the punishment of treasonous public servants and the role of the feminine in revealing truth and influencing those in power.
Ancient Lessons in Dealing with Treason
This post explores how ancient kings addressed acts of treason committed by trusted members of their royal courts. The Book of Esther offers a powerful example through the story of Haman, a high-ranking public servant in a position of responsibility who misused his authority to act against the people. Driven by ego and pride, Haman was offended by Mordecai’s refusal to bow to him and sought revenge, not just on Mordecai, but on his entire people across the realm. Filled with anger, he manipulated the truth and deceived the king to serve his evil vendetta.
The Book of Esther offers relevant insights for our times, especially as we are witnessing increasingly unlawful and treasonous abuses of power by our public servants, including councils, courts, police, government officials, and their agents, such as debt collectors and solicitors. Like Haman, many use their position to oppress the people rather than to serve them.
Guided by Esther’s bravery, King Ahasuerus, upon uncovering Haman’s deceit, acts decisively to restore justice. Haman is executed for his treachery, his estate is given to Mordecai as restitution, and the people who were the subject of Haman’s wrath are permitted to kill those who served Haman.
This ancient narrative offers a compelling example of how those who betray the public trust through manipulation, false accusations, or unlawful acts might be held accountable. The book of Esther also reveals how true leaders empower the people to directly deal with those who have oppressed them.
Woman as a Spiritual Redeemer
The prophecy of the Book of Esther is recommended in the book ‘Clothed with the Sun’, a collection of mystical visions and esoteric writings by Anna Bonus Kingsford (1846–1888), a pioneering English mystic, physician, and early advocate of animal rights and women’s spiritual empowerment.
In Chapter No. IX ‘Concerning the Prophecy of the Book of Esther’ she predicts that the future spiritual redeemer of the world will manifest through the feminine principle as a woman. She invites the reader to discover more about this by reading the Book of Esther, which is included in the Apocrypha; a book of ancient religious texts written between the Old and New Testaments around 400 BCE to 100 CE that is usually excluded from Protestant Bibles. Many ancient texts have been concealed from the public because of the powerful truths they contain, because those in control of the system are in fear that the people will be empowered.
In this Chapter, Kingsford introduces The Book of Esther, from the Apocrypha, as a mystic prophecy written in the form of actual history.
This book starts with Queen Vasthi being deposed from her Royal seat for being disobedient to King Ahasuerus, creating a need to find a new Queen who ends up being Esther.
She explains that Mordecai, Esther’s guardian, represents the spirit of intuitive reason and understanding and Mordecai’s enemy, Haman, represents the spirit of materialism.
Kingsford summarises the plot as follows: Esther, under the care and tuition of Mordecai, is brought up pure and virgin, and has the spirit of love and sympathetic interpretation, which shall redeem the world. To reach the point of being ready, Esther had six years of severe and bitter study and training to become proficient in intellectual knowledge. Two dragons fight and tear each other until there arises a star, a fountain of light, a queen who is Esther. The two dragons are Haman and Mordecai.
In preparation for pleading with the King on behalf of Mordecai, she places her trust in God and asks the people in the capital to pray and fast with her for three days. Esther shows great bravery when she risks death by appearing before the King without being summoned. The King is so favourably impressed with her beauty and courage that she can ask for anything, and she chooses to set a trap for Haman.
Apocrypha, King James Version, Reader’s Edition, Hendrickson Publishers, 2009
This is our summary of The Book of Esther as taken from the King James Version of the Apocrypha:
Mordecai discovered that two eunuchs, Bigthana and Teresh, were planning to kill the King.
Mordecai was rewarded by the King and asked to serve in the court.
Queen Vashti refuses King Ahasuerus’ command, which angers him, and she loses her position as his wife.
Mordecai, a Benjaminite (from Jacob’s line and one of the twelve tribes of Israel), brought up his uncle’s daughter (his cousin) Esther.
King Ahasuerus seeks a new, younger wife.
Esther was given twelve months of purification: six with oil of myrrh, and six with sweet odours before the King chose her to be the new queen.
Haman was promoted by the King, and Mordecai was the only servant who refused to bow to him, because he did not want to glorify a man above the glory of God.
Haman sought to take revenge on Mordecai. He was so angered that he sought to harm all the Jews by telling the King they were malicious people in opposition to the laws and commandments of the King.
Mordecai was upset, and Esther tried to assist him. He asked her to speak to the King on behalf of her people.
She broke the rules by going to the King without being called, but he was kind to her.
She invites the King and Haman to a banquet she has prepared.
The King reads the record in the chronicles that explains how Mordecai saved the King’s life from Bigthana and Teresh.
The King asks Haman ‘What shall be done unto the man whom the King deligheth to honour?’, without saying who it is until Haman answers. Then the King tells him it is Mordecai, and Haman has to follow through with the good plan.
Haman is upset and then has to go to the banquet the Queen has prepared.
The Queen asks the King to save her and her people from Haman.
The King hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai.
The King gives the Queen Haman’s possessions, and she gives them to Mordecai.
The King reverses Haman’s decree against the Jews with an official letter to the people.
Esther: Chapter 16
Chapter 16 of The Book of Esther contains the official letter from King Ahasuerus reversing the decree that Haman had sent out to destroy Mordecai’s people. It follows the dramatic revelation of Haman’s dark plot against the people and Esther’s brave intervention. This letter seems applicable today, in a society that is full of ego, narcissism, and corruption, where the people holding public office in government and other public bodies regularly commit treason against the people.
I have highlighted in bold the text that seems relevant to the behaviour we are witnessing today.
Esther 16 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
16 The great King Ahasuerus, from India to Ethiopia, to the governors and princes of a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, which obey our command, sendeth greeting.
2 Many have abused unto pride the goodness of princes, and the honour that hath been bestowed upon them:
3 And not only endeavour to oppress the king’s subjects, but not bearing the glory that is given them, take in hand to practise also against those who gave it.
4 Neither are they content not to return thanks for benefits received, and to violate in themselves the laws of humanity, but they think they can also escape the justice of God who seeth all things.
5 And they break out into so great madness, as to endeavour to undermine by lies such as observe diligently the offices committed to them, and do all things in such manner as to be worthy of all men’s praise.
6 While with crafty fraud they deceive the ears of princes that are well meaning, and judge of others by their own nature.
7 Now this is proved both from ancient histories, and by the things which are done daily, how the good designs of kings are depraved by the evil suggestions of certain men.
8 Wherefore we must provide for the peace of all provinces.
9 Neither must you think, if we command different things, that it cometh of the levity of our mind, but that we give sentence according to the quality and necessity of times, as the profit of the commonwealth requireth.
10 Now that you may more plainly understand what we say, I Aman the son of Amadathi, a Macedonian both in mind and country, and having nothing of the Persian blood, but with his cruelty staining our goodness, was received being a stranger by us:
11 And found our humanity so great towards him, that he was called our father, and was worshipped by all as the next man after the king:
12 But he was so far puffed up with arrogancy, as to go about to deprive us of our kingdom and life.
13 For with certain new and unheard of devices he hath sought the destruction of Mordecai, by whose fidelity and good services our life was saved, and of Esther the partner of our kingdom, with all their nation:
14 Thinking that after they were slain, he might work treason against us left alone without friends, and might transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians.
15 But we have found that the Jews, who were by that most wicked man appointed to be slain, are in no fault at all, but contrariwise, use just laws,
16 And are the children of the highest and the greatest, and the ever living God, by whose benefit the kingdom was given both to our fathers and to us, and is kept unto this day.
17 Wherefore know ye that those letters which he sent in our name, are void and of no effect.
18 For which crime both he himself that devised it, and all his kindred hang on gibbets, before the gates of this city Susan: not we, but God repaying him as he deserved.
19 But this edict, which we now send, shall be published in all cities, that the Jews may freely follow their own laws.
20 And you shall aid them that they may kill those who had prepared themselves to kill them, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is called Adar.
21 For the almighty God hath turned this day of sadness and mourning into joy to them.
22 Wherefore you shall also count this day among other festival days, and celebrate it with all joy, that it may be known also in times to come.
23 That all they who faithfully obey the Persians, receive a worthy reward for their fidelity: but they that are traitors to their kingdom, are destroyed for their wickedness.
24 And let every province and city, that will not be partaker of this solemnity, perish by the sword and by fire, and be destroyed in such manner as to be made unpassable, both to men and beasts, for an example of contempt, and disobedience.
Esther: Chapter 8
Chapter 8 of The Book of Esther explains how the official letter from King Ahasuerus is distributed to all the people throughout the realm, and they celebrate with joy and gladness.
Esther: Chapter 9
In Chapter 9, the people decide that they hate those who wanted to have power over them, and seek them out to kill them. Through fear of Mordacai, the governors and officers of each town and city assist the people to seek out the bad people so that they can slaughter them with swords. Esther ordered Haman’s ten sons to be hanged on the gallows. The people celebrated again with feasts and gifts to the poor.
Insight
A man in a position of power will be influenced by a woman of a pure heart. His decisions will bring justice and restitution to a group of oppressed people. Their oppressors will be punished, and their illicit gains will be redistributed. Those representing the truth with be rewarded.
Rembrandt
Rembrandt van Rijn was inspired to paint Ahasveros and Haman at the Feast of Esther by a play about Esther by Johannes Serwouters in 1659.
The painting depicts Esther and the King as a united front opposed to Haman. The King’s lips are pursed in anger, and Haman’s stooped pose suggests a sense of impending doom.
Guy Fawkes Night – A Celebration of Rebellion
In early 17th-century England, there was significant tension between Protestants and Catholics. King James was Protestant, and Catholics faced persecution, including restrictions on practicing their faith. A group of Catholic conspirators, led by Robert Catesby, hatched a plan to kill the king, overthrow the government, and install a Catholic monarch. They planned to do this by blowing up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament, which the King and other prominent figures would attend.
Guy Fawkes, a former soldier with explosives experience, was tasked with overseeing the gunpowder. The conspirators had rented a cellar beneath the House of Lords and filled it with 36 barrels of gunpowder.
On October 26, 1605, an anonymous letter warning of the plot reached Lord Monteagle, a Catholic peer. Authorities investigated, and on the night of November 4th, Guy Fawkes was discovered in the cellar with the explosives. He was arrested and tortured, leading him to reveal the names of his co-conspirators. Fawkes and several of his fellow conspirators were tried, convicted of treason, and executed. The failure of the Gunpowder Plot was celebrated by the king and Parliament, and an annual day of thanksgiving was declared for November 5th.
In the years following the failed plot, November 5th was celebrated with bonfires, fireworks, and church services thanking God for the king’s safety, however, I believe that they were misled. People would burn effigies of Guy Fawkes on bonfires as a symbolic punishment, not realising that the King was oppressing the people and they had their rights under Magna Carta. This ‘celebration’ was a form of control, to put fear into the people that if they acted against the King they would lose their lives. Having an annual day of commemoration meant that this idea remained in the minds of the people.
Little did the people know about the treason being committed by the government against the people. Perhaps it would be better remembered as an uprising against the tyrannical King, in the same way the people stood up to King John. This resulted in Magna Carta 1215, which is our constitutional document, which protects the rights of the people. This document has been ignored by successive governments as they ride roughshod over the people charging excessive taxes and bringing in more control.
Over time, children began creating effigies or “Guys” out of old clothes, which they would parade around town asking for “a penny for the Guy.” This tradition evolved into a form of trick-or-treating in some areas. While the political and religious significance has faded, the night is enjoyed as a fun, social tradition with large firework displays. Some communities still burn “Guys” as a nod to history, though the practice has become less common.
The image of Guy Fawkes has come to represent rebellion and protest in popular culture. The 1980s graphic novel and 2005 film V for Vendetta portrayed Fawkes as a symbol against tyranny, inspiring protest movements worldwide to adopt the iconic Guy Fawkes mask. This was performed publicly in 2020, in the London Million Mask March.
We know that there are more ways than gunpowder to bring down our politicians.
Here is a contemporary rap celebrating the gunpowder plot:
Was St Peter’s Church Built by Peasants?
In my last post, I researched the early history of Petersfield and St Peter’s church. But there is a detail that has been niggling away at me which has caused me to start questioning the validity of what we are being told.
The ‘Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan‘ on the East Hampshire District Council website states that St Peter’s Church was built ‘In the 12th century, probably between 1125 and 1150, when the earliest part of St Peter’s Church was built’.
Yet, I find it very odd that this is the only website that will commit to a date for the building of the church. None of the other sites covering the early history of St Peter’s offer a specific date, they all gloss over it. Why would there not be official records giving the construction dates?
Having seen the detailed craftsmanship and the large amount of stone used to build the structure of St Peter’s, I wondered how this would be possible for people who at that time were peasants living in timber structures and surviving by working on the land.
The Anglo-Saxon period continued until 1066, which was the start of the Norman Conquest. BBC Bitesize confirms what our children are taught for GSE History about life in Anglo-Saxon times, which in contrast to this church building seems very primitive.
Yet, our historians would have us believe that around fifty years after the Norman Conquest, these same peasants were building stone churches and castles.
But there is no mention that Anglo-Saxon men were master craftsmen capable of the detailed stonework as seen on what is known as the ‘Norman Chancel Arch’ as described by the Hampshire History website. How did these farm peasants manage to find the time to focus on learning the craftsmanship and building skills required to build a church such as this? Who taught them those skills? And how were there enough men to both tend the fields and carve ornate detail like this with a hammer and chisel?
According to BBC Bitesize, our children are taught for GSE History that in Norman times everyone lived a short walk from a castle or church, which means there must have been a lot of castles and churches. But who had the time to build such large-scale structures to such a high level of workmanship when everyone was busy working on the land? What changed in the fifty years between the Norman Conquest and the building of Norman churches?
The answer is nothing, and BBC Bitesize confirms that the people were still living off the land during Norman times.
Then, we are told that approximately fifty years later the local peasants rebuilt and greatly enlarged the church, which does not make any sense. My feeling is that the church was already larger and because there were no records as evidence they made up the narrative that it was gradually extended over time to make it seem like it had been built by our civilisation.
‘Towards the end of the twelfth century, a second period of building added the north and south aisles, taking the walls out to the north and south ends of the transepts and building a west tower to replace the central one.’ https://stpeterspetersfield.org.uk/about_stpeters/the-history-of-st-peters-church/
It doesn’t make sense that farm workers built stone structures with detailed carving such as this when the housing at that time was of timber construction. I wonder if these castles and buildings that are said to have been built in Norman times were actually the remnants of a previous civilisation.
The History of St Peter’s Church in Petersfield: Anglo Saxons, Wolves, & Magna Carta
The first church in Petersfield was built before the establishment of Petersfield as a town, in an area of fields which was part of the extensive Anglo-Saxon Manor of Mapledurham, also known as Malpedresham, and now known as the village of Buriton, which was in the centre of the estate.
The Saxon origins of Mapledurham were first recorded in the time of the Saxon King Edward the Elder, son of King Alfred the Great. He was the King of the West Saxons, or Wessex, between 870 and 924.
At this time the manor was held by a woman, Wulfeva Beteslau otherwise known as Wulfgifu Beteslau. The Domesday books recorded that she owned 23 valuable manors across the south-west in Hampshire, Sussex, Wiltshire, and Dorset.
Wulfgifu is an Old English name derived from the Old Saxon language of North West Germany comprising the elements of ‘wulf’ and ‘giefu’ meaning ‘wolf gift’. Wulfeva was an Anglo-Saxon name with the other forms including Ulveva, Ulveiva, Ulvevia, Ulueua, Vlueua, Vlueue, Wlueua, Wlviva.
Giefu is a rune from the Younger Futhark with the alternate Anglo-Saxon rune being Gyfu. The old runic poems give it the meaning of ‘gift’ and it is now associated with generosity and gratitude in all aspects of giving and receiving, both for the giver and the recipient.
The link with wolves comes up again in 1302 when The Testa de Nevill, a compilation of early records of feudal landholdings made between 1198 and 1292, says that Malpedresham was included in the hundred of Wlputta. Wlputta is linked to place names in Europe and North America, such as the town of Wolfput in Belgium, and in Suffolk, England the village of Woolpit was formerly known as Wolfpit.
Twenty-two of Wulfgifu’s estates, including Mapledresham were taken by William the Conqueror during the Norman Conquest (1066-1154 ) after the Anglo-Saxon forces of Harold Godwinson were defeated at the Battle of Hastings. When he became King William I of England he gave the valuable Manor of Mapledurham to his wife Queen Matilda of Flanders, also known as Maud. She owned the Manor for several years but died in 1083, shortly before the Domesday survey was published.
The survey shows that in 1086, Ida of Lorraine, the wife of Count Eustace II and the Countess of Boulogne, was the holder of the other manors in Hampshire and Dorset previously owed by Wulfeva.
St Peter’s Church and Petersfield are not mentioned in the Domesday Book because the area was open fields, but it mentions a ‘church’ in the centre of the Mapledurham estate, which is now the site of the Norman Church St Mary’s in the village of Buriton. It is possible that the original Saxon building was rebuilt by the Catholic Queen so that she could attend Mass, but there are no records to prove this happend. St Mary’s church has some features which are said to be Norman such as the font, medieval stone seats, and the Norman/Romanesque arches bearing carvings of water lilies, foliage and scallops. It was clearly important to the people as it remained the mother church of the local area until 1886.
In Norman times the Petersfield area, situated in the north of the Manor, was isolated from the parish church in Mapledurham by swamps and marshes, so a chapel of ease, or chapelry, was said to be built on a gravel ridge between two streams to enable the farm labourers to worship when they were out working in the fields. It was called St Peter-in-the-Veld and later St Peter in the Fields because ‘veld’ means open space. It is thought that the earliest part of St Peter’s dates from the late Norman period between 1125 and 1150.
On the death of Queen Matilda in 1083 the Manor of Mapledurham reverted to King William who gave it to Robert Fitzhamon for services rendered in suppressing the revolt of Odo of Bayeux. His wife Sibyl of Montgomery Fitzhamon did not bear a son, so his property passed with his daughter Mabel when she married Robert de Caen Fitzroy. He was William’s nephew, and the illegitimate son of King Henry I who became the First Earl of Gloucester.
Robert’s son, William FitzRobert, the Second Earl of Gloucester, founded the town of Petersfield in the early 12th century after he started a market in front of St Peter’s church and subsequently sold parcels of the surrounding land to the merchants so they could build houses.
During the reign of Henry II, he granted the burgesses of Petersfield all of the liberties and free customs enjoyed by the citizens of Winchester and allowed them to have a merchant guild. These privileges were rewritten in 1198 by his widow Hawise de Beaumont in the Charter of Petersfield, which was confirmed by King John and is preserved in the archives of Petersfield Town Council.
“Know all men, present and to come, that I, Countess of Gloucester have granted and confirmed to my Burgesses of Petersfield, who have built and are settled and who shall build in it, all liberties and free customs in the same Borough which the citizens of Winchester have in their city, who are in a guild of merchants and let them have the same in a guild of merchants as my husband, William Earl of Gloucester, granted to them by his charter.”
Harissa founded the Abbey of Nuneaton, and a further link between the Chapel of St Peters and the St Mary’s parish church of Mapledresham was recorded when William granted free alms from them both to the nuns of St Mary of Nuneaton in Warwickshire.
William died in 1183, leaving three daughters Mabel, Amice, and Isabel. Henry II gave Isabel in marriage to Prince John along with all of the possessions of the earldom which he had himself retained for six years, and which John retained after his accession and divorce from Isabel.
In 1205 King John then granted the manors of Mapledurham and Petersfield to Aumary Count of Evereux also known as Earl Evereux, who had married Mabel one of Isabella’s sisters. On his death, King John grated it to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Isabella’s second husband.
These were turbulent times and before the year was out Geoffrey was in revolt against John in the winter of 1215, the year John was forced to sign Magna Carta by the barons of England who were greatly annoyed by his poor treatment of the people, so they wrote our English constitution which still applies to the Monarcy and our politicians today.
In 1331 the Bishop of Winchester linked the chapel of Petersfield and the church of Mapledurham with the prior and convent of St Swithun, Winchester.
After this date, the Manor of Mapledurham again reverted to the Honour of Gloucester, with the sole surviving heiress of William, Earl of Gloucester being Amice, wife of Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford. Their grandson, Richard de Clare the Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, granted the manor to his brother William de Clare and his heirs.
The family of Hanbury held the manor until 1691 when they sold the estate to John Barkesdale, who shortly afterwards sold it to Ralph Bucknel, whose heirs conveyed it to Edward Gibbon Director of the South Sea Company. His son Edward Gibbon inherited it in 1736 and passed it on to his son, the historian Edward Gibbon.
In 1789, he sold it to Lord Stawell, who then sold it to Henry Bonham of Petersfield. Henry Bonham died in 1800; his brother and heir died in 1826, leaving his Buriton estates to his cousin John Carter, who assumed the name of Bonham and was the first John Bonham-Carter. He died in 1838, leaving a son and heir John Bonham-Carter, who died in 1884, leaving a son and heir John Bonham-Carter who died in December 1905, leaving the Buriton estates to his brother Lothian George Bonham-Carter.
References
Malpedresham; Mapeldoreham; Mapeldereham, Mapledreham, Mapeldurham, Mapeldeham and Appeldoueham; Mapuldrham; Mapylderham; Mapel-Dereham.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp85-93
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Matilda-of-Flanders/
https://cdn.easthants.gov.uk/public/documents/Petersfield-Conservation-Area-Character-Appraisal-and-Management-Plan-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Earl-of-Gloucester
https://opendomesday.org/place/SU7321/mapledurham/
http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/hampshire2.html
https://stpeterspetersfield.org.uk/about_stpeters/the-history-of-st-peters-church/
http://buriton.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-Old-Rectory-whole-doc-final-web.pdf
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/8375320/matilda-of_flanders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book
https://archive.org/stream/victoriahistoryo03page/victoriahistoryo03page_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/stream/historyofhampshi03doubuoft/historyofhampshi03doubuoft_djvu.txt
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/search?query=petersfield
https://www.history.ac.uk/research/victoria-county-history
https://archive.org/stream/historyofhampshi03doubuoft/historyofhampshi03doubuoft_djvu.txt
0
