William of Malmesbury was a prominent historian of the 12th century, providing a detailed account of the events surrounding the Norman Conquest and the Battle of Hastings. He was born in 1096 in Wiltshire. His writings are critical resources for understanding the period, as they reflect the perceptions and attitudes prevalent in his time, which have been passed down to us.
In his historical texts, William chronicled the struggles and conflicts that characterised the latter years of Anglo-Saxon England after the battle. He was particularly focused on the political and social ramifications of the Norman invasion, documenting how William the Conqueror's ambitions to claim the English throne evolved into a full-scale military campaign. In recent years his work has been catapulted into public discussion due to modern historians seeking to use his works to persuade the media that the evidence presented here is incorrect.
Relying upon Malmesbury’s written record English Heritage have claimed William of Malmesbury supports the site at Battle Abbey.:
The first thing to understand is that the Chronicle of Battle Abbey was not written half a century after William of Malmesbury. It was written using documents from near the time of the battle in 1070. Let us look at what is wrong with this claim by English Heritage as it is important. It is not a valid defense of the Battle Abbey site and shows woeful misconduct on behalf of anyone trusting it. William of Malmesbury was written after 1100, primarily because he was born in 1096 and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey was published later by the King in 1180, but it relied upon the source document written in the first 22 folios in the hand of a monk who lived there, giving a first-hand account of the events of the Battle, believed to be written between 1066 to 1074– that is the authority upon which the King and Abbey relied. It is therefore academic nonsense talking about William of Malmesbury being written before the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. What matters is when the statement was made and by whom and to have a verified authority, which the Chronicle has produced. Heritage England has not considered the Chronicle of Battle Abbey because they have fixed thinking, indoctrinated into their heads by the old wave historians of the Victorian generation, who have dismissed it as unreliable. Neither have they read the whole of Dr Eleanor Searle's (1926-1999) work, who translated it, because she recognised it made a false assumption which she identified as the lies at the beginning of that document.
OK, so let's think about what we say happened. We say the Chronicle of Battle Abbey was correct, and the Abbey was started in Crowhurst, where the foundations can be found of the original abbey. It is undeniable that the foundations are under the hill in Crowhurst to a massive pre13th century building with Norman arches in the undercroft and were moved by the French monks up to six years after they started the work (leaving the foundations in Crowhurst to build the Manor House, for the Count of Eu). When they moved the Abbey to Battle, they left the foundations in Crowhurst and covered the hill with soil to hide it, leaving just those elements built upon later in the 14th century.
We know this is true because the magnetometry and resistivity survey of the Manor House in Crowhurst supported other geophysics, which shows this and is lodged in evidence. William of Malmesbury’s account of the Battle of Hastings is a good example, because it is devoid of any substance in regards to the account of the battle and it is written with nothing to give it authority as a first hand source. Its content for that reason is assumed to be totally taken from other sources by those who have studied the matter. The fact he repeats what the monks tell him is not surprising. The actual words used by William of Malmesbury are repeated here and were:
‘William built another monastery near Hastings, dedicated to St Martin, which was also called Battle, because the principle church stands on the very spot, where, as they report, Harold was found in the thickest heaps of the slain.’
There is no verified support in the academic community that this amounts to proof that the Abbey was started in Battle if you read it carefully. Plenty of people consider it completely mad that we should challenge such an entrenched view running against academic wisdom. This also explains why none of the heavyweights have issued further books on the subject.
Heritage England uses a report from the monks to justify their position for Battle Abbey, but it is not an observation from the author William of Malmesbury. It is time to recognise what is written and realise it is not a statement of fact, but a third unnamed party observation – suggesting that it is probably incorrect (otherwise, Malmesbury would not have qualified the statement). Those who respect William of Malmesbury's reporting tradition will recognise that this carefully worded document clarifies that he does not support what he tells us.
This qualification is not present elsewhere in Malmesbury's book, the 'Chronicle of the Kings of England' and should not be quoted as confirming that William of Malmesbury says the site at Battle was where King Harold fell – he did not – he says ‘others reported that’ and the others were the monks in the Abbey at Battle. It is misinformation to quote William of Malmesbury as an absolute authority. Heritage England must recognise that although he was an excellent historian, they are not listening to his words. They are words twisted by unscrupulous historians from this time for their gain, seeking to move the truth around as it suits them. We do not understand why they cannot accept this valid fact and get on with a proper evaluation to announce the correct site.
Let us finish this reading of what William of Malmesbury actually said and reported, by commenting that his report was although minimal in content it was technically correct and therefore cannot be faulted. The problem sits with unscrupulous historians prepared to use his words to impose their own thinking upon events by misrepresenting what has been said in the past by those they misquote, which is a fatal error for historians to take.