Chronicle of Battle Abbey (edited and Translated by Eleanor Searle)

Written in Latin the Oxford edition was published in 1980 and has become the defacto interpretation of the events written in that document, by the monks who resided at Battle Abbey. It was ackowledged to have been forged in the 1150’s when the Abbot decided that he wished to avoid taxes levied by the King. Historians took this to mean that it was unreliable and most historians have ignored what is written there, unable to undertake the academic challenges presented.

Examination by Searle, who undertook the translation, confirmed the lies implemented by the Abbot, but also recognised the inclusion of the first fourteen folios in the only first hand account of the landing and battle written by the monks. It consisted of two manuscripts bound together as one, despite not being published until the 1180’s. ‘The Chronicle of Battle Abbey’ therefore contains information of the earliest recording in the first fourteen folios . Unlike other documents it tells us the invasion landed ‘near the town called Pevensey extensively long the shore.’ It tells us William spent ‘no long time there’ and made his way to ‘a near by port called Hastings’ where he ‘built a wooden fort’. He arrives at a hill called ‘Hedgeland’ which lies towards Hastings where his hauberk (armour) is held the wrong way round. This hill has been identified as the original Hastings pre-1066, as detailed in the evidence relating to Hastings Castle, where King Alfred’s Burh and mint has also been found. Details of how to find these were found are in the books entitled Secrets of the Norman Invasion One and the more recent 1066 The Battlefield by Nick Austin in the store.

At the camp by the sea William makes his battlefield oath, which is not recorded anywhere else and the English are said to occupy the hill ‘where the church now stands”. Searle understood this to mean Battle Abbey, because she had been brought up in the tradition that the abbey was where the battlefield was built. However, the document does not tell us the church was at Battle and evidence in the Domesday Survey indicates that it could not be there and was in Crowhurst.

It is remarkable that no-one has recognised the importance of the Domesday Book in identifying the fact that without enough wastage in the Battle Manor survey there was no chance that a battle could have taken place there. Further at the time of writing it must have been at the bottom of the hill in Crowhurst, where the battle took place, because analysis of the values shows this was the most wasted manor in the whole of England. Coming close behind this was Wilting Manor in Hastings where it can be shown the Normans had camped. No English historian will take the evidence in the Domesday and criticise or seek to change it. They would prefer to ignore it completely - something we cannot do.

The Chronicle provides further information that the monk called Smith later decided that he wanted to build the abbey and a reason needed to be provided to the King, which explained the extraordinary delay in starting to build  the Abbey (six years) later. It says “They studied the battlefield and decided that it seemed hardly suitable for so outstanding a building” and in consequence moved it. This place where the abbey was moved from was called “Herste and has a low stone wall as a mark of this.” The site is therefore named in the Chronicle where the fighting took place.

Searle translated this text to confirm that the phrase ‘Qui locus, hucusque Herste cognominatus, quandam habet spinam in huius rei monimentum’ should have been translated as:

‘This place, still called Herste, has a column as a monument of this’.

It confirms the correct battlefield has a large stone monument. The word ‘spinam’ was unknown for its use on a battlefield whereas ‘monumentum’ is well attested as ‘monument’.

‘Crerste’ is the Sussex dialect name for ‘Crowhurst’.

The document is packed with correct information stating they landed ‘near Pevensey,’ how William ‘fell upon landing’, where they then moved across the river to ’a near by port called Hastings’. How he had ‘burnt some of his boats’, and made ‘a vow at his camp at the hill called Hedgeland’, which ‘lies towards Hastings’. At that point William’s armour (‘hauberk’)is ‘held the wrong way round’.

The battle then starts and we are told about the loss of many lives in a place called the ‘Malfosse.’ We are told of a great slaughter with little detail. There then follows a series of paragraphs based upon ‘tradition’ where the monks start to build the abbey in the wrong place and William orders it to be moved back, on which there is no comment. There is nothing wrong with this at all, except traditional historians could not understand it and so made up the excuse that it was moved back to the Abbey site in Battle. Clearly it was not, because there would be no reason to add it in the first place and must therefore amount to muddled thinking, which has continued ever since. It was a monumental error of judgement and cannot stand proper academic scrutiny.

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey is of great importance despite elements being identified as Fake. These could be identified by the start of each paragaph, which sought to identify them as being created by ‘tradition’, especially near the end of folio 14. Heritage England have identified the Abbey at Battle as the original site of the battle by missidentifying the claim that the ‘tradition’ stated in that document was true, thus ignoring the majority of the original writing as shown by Searle to be correct, yet quoting it as their source. However the King also confirmed it was fake around 1180 AD. when the abbot made the original claim and it was subsequently dissmissed by the authority of the King. No tradition could be claimed using a document that contained a first hand description of events written at the time of the Battle. That is as true today as when the second manuscript was added or when Heritage England took control of the site and started to use it for re-enactments. As a consequence the claim that the abbey was built in Battle was rightly dissmissed in error many years before.

Searl states that the document:

‘had become the ‘natural’ commencement of their own story, and a tradition that even the otherwise fastidious main chronicler, was willing to foist upon his successors as truth; a lie, as he must have known, but one that would be harmless to their interests in years to come.

Due to an ability not to see the wood for the trees Victorian historians have hypnotised the historical elite in the United Kingdom to not take into account what has been submitted to the King and reject aspects of the claim that should not be ignored. They have done lasting damage to the reputation of the Historical Society, who have been infuenced by the issues refusing to debate them in normal academic light, leaving them isolated in their historical thinking on the Battle of Hastings. They are more interested in the reputation of those who have written on the subject (their members) than seeking historical truth. The claim involves accepting issues that run contrary to the received wisdom, the lay of the land and expert proof of documentation of the actual battle, which has resulted in over 200years of acceptance by those who are familiar with the presented facts. The most damning being the acceptance of the translation of the Latin text, without proper academic scrutiny. That failure to allow proper scrutiny resulted in the missidentification of the site of the battle and the burial of Harold, which is dealt with in the book recently published called. They do not present any defence to this position, now the internet is here the documents can no longer be hidden, your view is important, let the public decide…..

Images from Crowhurst Abbey/Manor House