WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY

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 pursuade the media that the evidence presented here is incorrect.

Relying upon Malmesbury’s written record it was claimed:

‘What of the traditional site? The authors assert that the story of the abbey’s altar being erected on the spot where Harold raised his standard occurs only in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, written a hundred years after the event. On the basis that the same chronicle contains other known distortions, they then rule its testimony out of court. But the Battle Chronicle is far from being the only source of the altar story. Half a century earlier the Anglo-Norman historian William of Malmesbury said exactly the same thing. ’

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. It is not a valid defence of the Battle Abbey site by Heritage England and shows woeful misconduct on their behalf by 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 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 – so it is 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; some might say Etonian historians, 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 that Heritage England summarily dismissed in their Review of the site. Those old-wave historians persuaded those in charge at Heritage England to listen to them and to ignore this evidence, because it would put their theories about why Battle Abbey was built there to flight. It provides an enlightened view of why the King did not listen to the view of the Abbey in the first place and why the crown rejected the claim that the Abbey had any rights there. In many respects, it is as good as you can get for them to name the site from where it was moved (the old Sussex name for Crowhurst). Of course, if you have yet to read this and do not look at it, you cannot accept what was written at the time, by those who built the Abbey. It was essential reading for the King, but was useless 900 years later at three Public Inquiries.

Identifying the foundations of where the Abbey was started in Crowhurst, and those statements made by people who never visited Crowhurst or passed on what they had been told by the monks many years later damns the traditional site at Battle Abbey forever. Heritage England cannot continue to use tradition to market their fake news site, when a valid alternative that does not rely upon a fake tradition is being sold down the road. We have all heard about ‘Fake News’ and do not expect a government endorsed historical research organisation to publish and blurt out fake news for its benefit. Someone at Heritage England thinks they can, because they have done it before, but they have yet to prove their case through authentic documents or valid research. They commissioned the Time Team to report, expecting to deliver a ‘coup de grâce’, but failed to provide the anticipated report.

Given that Heritage England employs a number of in-house archaeologists on-site, all the time at Battle Abbey, it is truly incredible that nothing suggests anything is there to convince me or anyone else of the truth of the disputed claim. It amounts to a job for the boys that will no longer sustain itself. They have fallen back upon their traditional arguments, which have no authentic basis in history, as agreed with academics who are recognised as experts in the history department at Cambridge University.

The documents from the time of the building prove my case, and ignoring them, or simply stating that your unknown experts all agree is not a valid response. The figures might seem acceptable to someone told to write a document to trash mine, but if you are, you must use valid documents, have a known source, and include eyewitness evidence. Everything I have provided has this qualification, yet the powers that be decided to ignore completely what has been said about the investigation and publish their report based upon nothing more than partiality, because it was based upon unsubstantiated 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. Plenty of people consider it completely mad that I should challenge such an en-trenched view against academic wisdom. This also explains why none of the heavyweights have issued further books on the subject. They fight upon a mound made from their own tongues but do not know what is under their feet. I at least know my ground and see that it holds against any attack.

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. It is correct that the monks reported what he told us, and anyone who wishes to believe it does not have a leg to stand upon when the correct battlefield is found.

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. I do not understand why they cannot accept this valid fact and get on with a proper evaluation to announce the correct site.

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey was presented to the King as the authority of the Abbot, and there were no direct lies, unlike what we are now told –'tradition' was the only lie because it could not be a tradition at the point in time that it was claimed to be written 1070AD. It was a first-hand observation of events featured in the first fourteen folios of the two manuscripts bound as one and the King identified that then, as we should easily understand now. Those who rely upon either William of Malmesbury or the Saxon Chronicles (which I shall deal with later) have failed to understand the chronology of the events they seek to rely upon. They are quoting documents that have been edited to support a case that, when examined in detail, is seen to be lacking. If they seek to rely up-on them it shows they do not support the traditional site at Battle Abbey. Any historian who understands the context of these documents and how they came into being should recognise this showing a fundamental flaw which all good historians should take into account. I should not be arguing this case because it is used by our national heritage organisation, now Heritage England, as a defence of Battle Abbey. It is complete nonsense; those reading my first book will understand it precisely.

Let me finish this reading of what William of Malmesbury actually said and reported, by commenting that his report 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.