Battle Abbey - is it really the resting place of Harold?
I've been looking into Battle Abbey recently and I have mixed feelings about what I have found out.
Of the Big Five 12th cent. sources, Battle Abbey, Wace, William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon and Orderic Vitalis, all mention the Abbey being built on the location of "the" battlefield but only two mention that Harold's body was found within the grounds.
Normally, given such widespread coverage and 5 sources, I would be the first to say okay, we have our three journalistic sources therefore it must be true. However, the reports all seem to be built on the supposition that what the Chronicle of Battle Abbey says about the foundation of the Abbey is true but the fact is part of the oral tradition of the Abbey so is not open to challenge.
Unlike today's American President's "tic toc ", which details what he/she is doing every minute, an English medieval king could spend as much as three weeks without his movements being reported. So, we are dealing with a very different mindset when it comes to recording details.
Timing of the Assertion
While the assertion is made in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, it was not published until the 1180's and Walter de Luci seems to cop the blame for forging the the charter but as Orderic's report and William of Malmesbury report come out in the1120's then the false information must have been prevalent at that time. This exonerates Walter de Luci.
Had a problem arisen when Will the Con was alive then there would have been no reason to concoct the claim made by Battle Abbey that William commanded that an abbey be built on the very spot where his enemy died. So that gives us a lower bound for the concoction of September 1087.
Let's chip away at the upper bound. right, we've already got dates for the publication of William of Malmesbury's tome being 1125. Now Orderic's first dates of proof for Book III comes in as 1114-1115. Henry of Huntingdon (1135) and Wace (1170's) and Battle Abbey (1180's) are published later.
Henry of Bec was appointed in 1096, no problem. When Henry died in 1102 there was an interregnum until 1107 when Ralph of Caen was appointed. This was filled by two people, Vivian ( one of the chaplins to the King Henry) followed by Gausfrid de Ccarileph ( Calais). It was at this point in time that Marmoutier claimed the right to appoint the Abbot being the "mother" Abbey. Now it would be a good time to bring to the fore the pledge that William the Con allegedly made that the Abbey free of all ties other than to the monarch.
Ralph of Caen was appointed in 1107 by Henry I so, one can assume that the problem had been ironed out to the satisfaction of Battle.
This brings us to the most logical time when the "oral tradition" would be useful and appropriate.
The problem with Bishop Stigand (1075 - 1087) could well have been handled by Will the Con ( died Sept 1087).
So, let's call it for the earliest time being Oct 1087 ( month after Will the Cons death) and the latest being 1114 (Orderic Book III published) with an optimal time being late 1106 ( just before the appointment of Ralph).
Was Harold laid to rest there?
I'd have to say an outstanding "no" to that. Only two sources out of the 5 mention it and even then one of them qualifies the statement. I'm still quite comfortable in placing the death of Harold out at Ashes Wood and his body in the church at Bosham.
Was Battle Abbey placed on the Battlefield?
Umm, this is a toughie. Did English troops ever line up along the ridge and fight there? I would say no. Was there an event at the other end of the High Street to Battle Abbey? Possibly, if you're talking about a skirmish or something similar but does that meet the test of being "on" the battlefield? If you're talking about the encounter with the two main protagonists present then no- I'm still confident that the main event happened elsewhere
