The mystery of the headless skeleton

There is a strange link between this mid-Victorian window and the 13th- century tomb of Simon de Leybourne, which are both to be found in the Trinity Chapel of the church of St. Mary the Virgin in Shrewsbury.

The king depicted on the window is Alfred the Great with his laws, but the shield above him, the blue lion on gold, is the coat of arms of Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester. Why is it there?

   Worcester was the uncle of Henry Percy, "Harry Hotspur", who led the rebel army at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. Hotspur was killed and afterwards Worcester was beheaded in the centre of Shrewsbury. His head would have been taken to London to be publicly displayed, but what happened to his body? 

   When floor tiles were laid in the chapel in the 19th century, a number of skeletons were found, one of which was wrapped in leather to preserve it, and had no head. Was the headless person the Earl of Worcester? The legend was that, after Worcester's execution, his supporters secretly removed his body and brought it to the church, where they forced open the Leybourne tomb and deposited it there. This story is retold in the historical novel "A bloody field by Shrewsbury" by Edith Pargeter (who is also known as Ellis Peters). I'm not sure which came first: the legend or the discovery of the headless skeleton.

Nowadays it's not generally believed that the Earl of Worcester was buried here, but the window serves to perpetuate the legend.

Christmas: the three kings

 This mid-19th century window, in the church of St. Mary the Virgin in Shrewsbury, is a copy of a painting by the Spanish artist Murillo, depicting the adoration of the Kings.

 

St. Matthew, who tells the story, only mentions "wise nen from the East", and it is only the fact that that they give three gifts suggests that they were three in number. But over the centuries various traditions grew up: that they were Kings, then they were given names, and then that one was a European, one was a Syrian and one was an African, to symbolise the three continents bowing down before the baby Jesus. Note that the African King, on the right, is dressed every bit of gorgeously as the others! And none of this has any basis in the Bible!

Photocartoon

 Margaret Dumont: "I believe Donald Trump was sent by God."

Groucho Marx: "Why? Had he run out of locusts?"

Musings: Further thoughts on Terrorism

 (Some thoughts evoked by recent events in Irael and Gaza)

 Terrorism/ terrorist is a “hiss-word”: intended less to convey information than to provoke an audience reaction. A terrorist is, by definition, a bad guy. Conversely, no good guy can be a terrorist, even though his actions might be considered to be similar.

What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom-fighter? The cynical answer is that “it depends where you’re standing”: one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter. Nevertheless, it should be possible to draw some distinction.

Terrorism always has some underlying political motive. Thus, ordinary gangland killings and bombings are not considered terroristic, but could be if there was some underlying ethnic or religious conflict

One might have thought that there is always a natural right to defend your home against a foreign invader, but in military law this is not the case. It is a longstanding principle of war that, whereas enemy uniformed soldiers are entitled to be treated justly, partisans, guerrilla fighters and civilians in arms can simply be killed out of hand. They are, in fact, always treated as terrorists.

It is straightforward to designate certain actions as terrorism (for instance, “9-11” in New York in 2001), but more difficult to define terrorism as such. Are all political assassinations necessarily terroristic? Most of us would agree that the killing of the Nazi leader Heydrich in Prague in 1942 was justifiable and not terroristic: but should it be viewed differently if numbers of civilian bystanders were killed in the operation?

Can governments be guilty of terrorism. such as the mass bombing of cities? Possible examples might be Dresden or Hiroshima in 1945, or indeed Gaza? 

What should be the best response by a government whose citizens have suffered a terrorist attack? Might it only serve to make things worse? In the instances of 9-11 and October’s events in Israel, the governments concerned understandably felt they had to do SOMETHING: hence the Afghan war and current events in Gaza. The  campaigns in Afghanistan and then Iraq were militarily successful in the short term, but not at all useful in the eventual results. By contrast, Mrs Thatcher’s government did NOT react violently to the I.R.A.’s Brighton bomb in 1984, which almost succeeded in killing the entire Cabinet. Why did she behave with such caution? Was that in fact the best response, leading eventually to the Northern Ireland peace process?

The most spectacular example of an understandable reaction going horribly wrong is, of course, the response of the Austrian government to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian-backed terrorists (freedom fighters?) at Sarajevo in 1914!

Postscript: “Situationism”is a term stemming from events in France and elsewhere around 1968. This involves taking actions so violent that the state responds with extreme violence of its own, which falls mostly upon the local population rather than the perpetrators. This has the effect of discrediting the moderates, forcing everyone to take sides, and turning opinion against the government. Should the Hamas gunmen of October be regarded as situationists?  

My novel

 

My online historical novel has finally been finished, after 37 weekly chapters! It can be read in its entirety at 

pgvshil.blogspot.com

or by following the link on the right, through "View my complete profile" to "The shadow of the past: the memoirs of Charles Huntingdon, M.P."

 Any comments would be welcome!

England: The Russell-Cotes museum; Bournemouth

Merton Russell-Cotes (1835-1921) was a rich and successful hotelier. In 1876 he and his wife Annie moved to Bournemouth, the seaside resort on the Dorset coast, and developed the Royal Bath Hotel as the most luxurious hotel in the town. As well as their business work and their charitable and political activities (he served as Mayor of Bournemouth in 1894-5, and was knighted in 1909), the couple were indefaticable travellers, voyaging all over the world, collecting wherever they went; being particularly keen on Oriental and Islamic art and artifacts. 

   In 1896 Russell-Cotes commissioned a local architect, John Frederick Fogarty, to design them a new house, to be named East Cliff Hall, in a position high above the beach with a garden in front and large windows and balconies opening to a beautiful view westwards to Poole Bay. Special fireplaces, stained glass and light fittings were ordered, but the house was also to have the most up-to-date electricity, plumbing and central heating, plus a telephone. The house was completed in 1901, but in 1916-19 new galleries were added to house the family's burgeoning art collection.

  They had always intended to open their house to public view, and after their deaths it was established in 1922 as the Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum. 

   This is the house and its view today.

This can hardly be bettered, but the contents of the house, while undoubtedly splendidly opulent, verge on the surreal, for they embody everything that the next generation of artists and designers were in revolt against. Walls are heavily panelled, every surface and niche is full of objects or pictures,

and what is one to make of the pictures, such as this enormous late-Victorian potrayal of nudes entirely devoid of any erotic appeal, 

or of religious scenes, such as this one by Edwin Longsden Lang of the Holy Family arriving in Egypt (approximately 18 feet by 6, in a style that, fifty years later and in another country, would be termed "Socialist realism"?

   If you are ever in Bournemouth, you must go and see it!

Musings: Shakespeare

 In these violent times, my thoughts have turned to a scene in Shakespeare's early play, "Henry VI, part 3", set in the blodstained turmoil of the Wars of the Roses. The teenage son of the Duke of York has been captured by Lord Clifford: the boy pleads for his life, but Clifford is implacable. "Thy father killed mine, therefore die!" he tells him. 

I find these words truly terrifying. An endless cycle of revenge can so easily continue for generation after generation, and differences of religion, ideology or race count for little by comparison.