Little discs of beaten silver by Carolyn Hughes

All of my posts so far for The History Girls have been about some aspect of the history of the Meon Valley in Hampshire, the setting for my series of historical novels. I undoubtedly have more to share about the Meon Valley, but I thought that, today, I would offer something a little different.

At home, I have a small collection of mediaeval coins – fourteenth century coins, to be precise, the time period of my novels. Although I have had them for a while, I have never really taken the time to examine them, to understand their markings or even to discover much about fourteenth century coinage. So, I thought I would take that time, and then share what I discovered.

I have just nine coins, although I hope to increase my collection in time. What I have is:

- Edward I: a penny and a farthing (a quarter of a penny)

- Edward II: a penny and a halfpenny

- Edward III: a penny, a halfpenny, a half groat (= two pennies) and a groat (= four pennies)

- Richard II: a halfpenny

All the coins are “hammered”, that is, struck by hand between two dies. “Milled” coins, where the coins were struck by dies in a coining press, were only fully introduced at the start of the reign of Charles II. 

First a bit of background…

Coins have an “obverse”, the side with the ruler’s image and name, and a “reverse”, which usually identifies the mint that produced the coin.

On most coins of this period the obverse wording starts at 12 o’clock after an initial mark, typically a cross, and has the ruler’s name and their titles, for example:

+EDW R ANGL DNS hYB | Edward Rex Anglorum Dominus Hyberniae | Edward King of England Lord of Ireland

Before Edward I (1272-1307), the only coin was the penny, which, on its reverse, showed the name of both the mint and the “moneyer”, the person in charge of producing coins at that mint. So, IOHN ON LUND would translate to JOHN OF LONDON. Identifying the moneyer was a way for the king to obtain accountability for the quality of his coinage. However, in 1279, Edward issued new coinage and at the same time stopped using the moneyers’ names and just identified the name of the mint, for example, CIVITAS LONDON is the City of London and VILL SCI EDMUNDI is the Town of Bury St Edmunds. (If you are actually interested in reading coin inscriptions, a full list of legends and their meanings on medieval coins can be found at http://www.psdetecting.com/Inscriptions.html.)

Edward III penny. In this case, the legend on the obverse reads

+EDWARDUS REX ANGLIE, Edward King of England and,

on the reverse, it is CIVI | TAS | EBO | RACI, the City of York. (c) Author

Of my coins, six were made in the City of London mint, one was made in York mint, and the last in the mint of Bury St Edmunds.

It seems that, after the Romans left, no coins were minted in Britain until about 650AD. But, after the consolidation of the English Kingdoms, a London mint was in operation again from soon after 650. At first its existence was somewhat precarious but, from about the time of Alfred the Great (871-899), its operation became continuous and increasingly important. However, at that time, London was only one of many mints, perhaps about 30 at that time and, by the reign of Ethelred II (978-1016), more than 70. These were mostly in the southern half of the country and there can have been few market towns of any consequence where coins were not struck. Although the number had declined by the Norman Conquest and, from the early 13th century, most minting was done in either London or Canterbury, it was not until 1279, and Edward’s reforms, that the country’s mints were finally unified. Control of coin production was centralised to the mint within the Tower of London and only a few mints outside London continued to operate.

The standard unit was the penny and the only denomination produced between 1066 and 1279. To create a halfpenny or farthing prior to 1279, the penny was cut in half or quartered. There is some debate as to whether this process was carried out at the mint or as and when it was needed.

Prior to the reign of Henry II, the quality of coin production was pretty poor and, in 1180, Henry introduced the “short-cross” penny, a style that remained more or less unchanged until 1247.

Short cross silver penny of King John, 1205-1207.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme/ The Trustees of the British Museum
[CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

However, during Henry III’s reign (1216–1272), it became clear that many coins in circulation were underweight, caused by the illegal practice of clipping silver off the edge of the coin, in theory made easier by the cross on the reverse not extending to the rim, so people had no clear indication of exactly how big the coin was supposed to be. I find this slightly curious, as the wording around the rim of the coin surely gave an idea of the coin’s extent? Nonetheless, in 1247, a new “long-cross” penny was introduced, which made it more obvious when a coin had been clipped. The long cross also made it easier to cut the coin into halves or quarters.

Edward I succeeded his father while away on Crusade in the Holy Land. Coin production had to continue while the new king made his long journey home, and long-cross pennies – still inscribed with his father’s name – continued to be produced. But Edward began to realise that English coinage needed to be improved to assure public confidence, and he also needed larger and smaller denominations.

A completely new coinage was struck in 1279 with a different design that made clipping much easier to detect. The strong, good-quality coins strengthened the economy and helped bring prosperity to the country.

Edward’s 1279 penny had a slightly different style from earlier pennies. On the reverse, the “voided” long cross (a cross with a channel along its arms) was replaced by a solid cross, a design that continued until the Tudor period.

Voided long cross penny of Henry III (1216-1272)
By Numisantica (http://www.numisantica.com/)
[CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons]

Edward I penny, reverse, showing the new solid cross. (c) Author

In 1279, Edward also introduced a farthing and, in 1280, a halfpenny, which were successful and continued to be minted. He tried also to introduce groats (four pence) and half groats (two pence) at the same time, but they were not a success and production stopped in the early 1280s, meaning that Edward I groats are extremely rare. (I wonder if I will ever find one?)

However, in 1351, Edward III (1327-1377) again introduced the groat and half groat and, this time, they were successful. They became very popular and eventually superseded the penny in importance.

Edward III groat, obverse and reverse (c) Author

The groats (and half groats) have a couple of significant differences in design from the penny. On the obverse, for example, the portrait is surrounded by arches known as a “tressure”. Some have trefoils on the cusps of the arches (as below), some have fleur de lys, and some are blank. On the reverse, there are two legends rather than one. The inner one is the mint signature, and the outer one is an oath. This style and wording was used right up to the end of the Tudor period.

Edward III half groat (c) Author

These annotated images of the author’s Edward III half groat show the “tressure” arches on the obverse, and the trefoils, and the wording on both sides. The obverse wording is slightly obscured but presumably reads:

+EDWARD[US] REX ANGL DNS hYB | Edwardus Rex Anglorum Dominus Hyberniae | Edward King of England, Lord of Ireland

The wording on the reverse is:

CIVI | TAS | LON | DON | 

+POSV | I DEVM | ADIVTO | RE MEV(M), which means “I have made God my helper”

The lettering on the obverse of Edward III coins varies slightly. In the early coinage of Edward III, Ns are shown as “n” rather than “N” – as in AnGL and DnS above, though on the reverse it is still “N”, as in LONDON. The king’s name too varies, from EDW and EDWA, right through to EDWARD or even EDWARDUS, depending on how much other text is required on the coin.

Edward III had four coinages during his reign, the first three relatively insignificant, but the fourth (1351-1377) was by far the largest and the politics of the period affected the wording on many of the coins minted. This fourth coinage is divided into three periods based around the Treaty of Brétigny, which was signed between England and France in 1361: pre-treaty (1351-61), treaty (1361-9) and post-treaty (1369-77). They are differentiated mostly by the wording of the obverse legend.

Edward claimed the throne of France so, in “pre-treaty” coinage, the wording includes his title as King of France. 

Edward III groat (c) Author

My groat, illustrated here, is a bit worn, so it is hard to make out all the lettering, but it is possibly as follows:

+E[D]WAR[D D? G?] REX ANGL [Z] F[RA]NC D hYB | Edward Dei Gratia Rex Anglorum Et Francia Dominus Hyberniae | Edward by the Grace of God King of England and France, Lord of Ireland

(Z stands for the French “et” (and).)

In 1360, the Brétigny treaty granted Edward land in France, so a “treaty period” groat does not have the French title, but includes Edward’s overlordship of Aquitaine (though only on larger denomination coins, not pennies or lower).

After the treaty was renounced by the French in 1369, Edward’s claim to France was reinstated so, on “post-treaty” coins, FRANC appears again in the wording on the coins.

When Edward’s eleven-year-old grandson Richard II (1377–1399) succeeded him (the Black Prince having died from dysentery in 1376), England was still claiming the throne of France. The wording on Richard’s pennies sometimes includes reference to France and sometimes not.

I have discovered in this brief review of the details of my coins that, in fact, there is a lot more I could learn about the differences between types and periods of coins, but it is rather arcane stuff about lettering and marks, which can help to pin down more precisely when the coin was minted. But I think I have enough here to satisfy my needs.

And, in truth, why have I got the coins at all? They are attractive to look at and usually I keep them in a display case. But what I really enjoy doing is to take them out of the case (though not out of their little protective wallets), and hold them in my hand. Some of them are in excellent condition, and so maybe weren’t all that much used, but others are quite worn and I like to imagine one of my halfpennies being passed across a market stall in return for a dozen eggs, or a penny handed to the alewife as the price of a gallon of ale, or a groat placed in the sweaty palm of a carpenter in payment for a day’s labour. That is where the pleasure lies in owning these little discs of beaten silver.

Statistics - and Edward ll by Mary Hoffman

Happy 2018 to all our Followers and readers!

At the beginning of a new year we thought you'd like to know some statistics. There are 1,183 official Followers on this site - who are eligible to enter our competitions if they live in the UK. But there are many more of you who read the blog without being Followers.

In July 2018 we will have been History Girls for eight years!

We've had over three million hits, a third of them from the United States of America. But we've also had nearly 36K from Ukraine and over 21K from China.

Our most popular post ever was Leslie Wilson's on Maria von Maltzan, 23rd July 2012. It has had nearly 96K hits!

The third most visited post was written only last month. Michelle Lovric's Suicide by Greed about the way Venice is succumbing to the effects of huge tourist cruise liners, was published on December 10th 2017. It has had over 17.5K hits already in three weeks.

I hope you find all this as fascinating as I do.

In case you are new to the site, this is our pattern:

1st - 28th of every month: a daily post by on of our 29 members (we have a job share on 15th).
29th: a guest post from a writer of history or historical fiction.
30th of months with 31 days: Cabinet of Curiosities by Charlotte Wigtwick, about an object or objects from history.
Last day of month: competition to win the latest book by the guest on 29th.

But the daily work of the site is to provide a different post every day of the year on a historical topic. So I must get on and give you a review of Edward ll the Man: a Doomed Inheritance by Stephen Spinks.


For many people, all that they know about England's second king of that name (after his father, Edward Longshanks), is that he died from a red hot poker up his backside. And this was a punishment for being a homosexual. He was deposed for his unnatural instincts and then cruelly murdered.

Hmn.

Well, for that you have to thank Christopher Marlowe, whose play, published posthumously in 1594, was first given the title The Troublesome Reign and Lamentable Death of Edward the Second, King of England, with the Tragical Fall of Proud Mortimer.

It portrays  Edward's fascination with his "favourite" Piers Gaveston, who is executed not far into the play and then his successor "Spenser" (Hugh Despenser the Younger historically). At the end of the drama, the regicide referred to above is carried out by the villainous Lightborn, whom many have identified with Lucifer (though surely he'd be called Lightbearer in that case?)

Stephen Spinks quickly deals with Marlowe's version at the beginning of his new biography and then proceeds to demolish what the play tells us. He makes it clear that his subject suffered terribly from being the middle Edward of a three generation kingship of that name. His father was known as The Hammer of the Scots, while this king suffered the ignominious defeat by Robert Bruce at Bannockburn.

His son, Edward lll, reigned for fifty years, produced thirteen children in his long marriage to Philippa of Hainault, was immensely popular with his subjects and, through his oldest son Edward the Black Prince, won victories in France, even taking the French king prisoner.

So the second King Edward is an early example of the "squeezed middle," and his reputation has consequently suffered. That he did have homosexual relationships is indisputable but he also had four children with his wife, Isabella of France. He was cultured, educated, refined and took pleasure in all sorts of athletic and aesthetic activities.

But his relationship with his father was stormy and the old king was increasingly irascible at the end of his reign. At his death Edward l left his son a burden of debts and of administrative chaos. The young Edward had a cohort of young knights with whom he had grown up and who formed a tight loyal band. Men like Roger Mortimer the Younger, who would eventually become Queen Isabella's companion in arms and lover.

Roger Mortimer, who would depose his friend and be executed by that friend's son after three years when he had effectively become the ruler of England.

Stephen Spinks has been fascinated and obsessed by Edward ll from boyhood, writing his PhD thesis on him and now this book, the culmination of many years of study.

So what does he think about Edward's end? Well, he adopts the thesis of historian Ian Mortimer in his book The Greatest Traitor: the Life of Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March. Both Spinks and Mortimer believe that Edward the Second was not in fact killed at Berkeley Castle in 1327 at all  and that his funeral was faked. They rely on a letter written by Manuele de Fieschi, a Papal notary in 1336.

According to the Fieschi letter, Edward survived, escaping first to Ireland and then to the continent where, after many travels, he became a monk in Lombardy and made his confession to Fieschi in 1335.

So, no red hot poker. No murder in fact and the king left to die of natural causes in a religious house in Italy. It's a quite different story. By contrast his former friend, then traitor Roger Mortimer was executed after three years of tyranny and his former queen, Isabella, was imprisoned by their son. Edward's half brother, the Earl of Kent was executed for plotting to restore Edward to the throne - something possible only if the deposed king had still been alive.

The author's enthusiasm for his subject ensures that this book is extremely readable and that Edward's reputation is at least partly rehabilitated. A good read for anyone who, like me, is fascinated by the Plantagenets.

(I'm afraid that Blogger absolutely refuses to upload any of my images, which has been a problem for a while now.)

'Fantastic New Diet - Deep-fried Brawn!' by Karen Maitland

You always know Christmas is over and the New Year has arrived, because the annual ritual is announced – the latest initiative from the government to make us all lose weight and eat healthily. Will our rulers never learn from history? Kings and governments have been trying to control what we eat and drink since the Middle Ages through laws, taxes and outright bans. And here we are, 700 years later, still fretting about obesity.

King Edward II (1284-1327) tried to legislate against ‘the outrageous consumption of meats and fine dishes’, in one of many Sumptuary laws which were regularly enacted right up to Elizabethan age in an attempt to control what the populace allowed were to spend on food, clothes and luxury goods. In 1336, Edward III, worried by excessive consumption and obesity among his subjects, attempted to limit all his subjects' meals to two modest courses.

' ... whereas heretofore, through the excessive and over many sorts of costly Meats which the People of this Realm have used … many mischiefs have happened to the People of the said Realm: for the great men, by these excesses, have been sore grieved, and the lesser People, who only endeavour to imitate the great ones in such sort of Meats, are much impoverished; whereby they are not able to aid themselves nor their liege Lord in time of need, as they ought; and many other evils have happened, as well to Souls as Bodies; …. That he would thereupon ordain … for the Profit of his People … that no man, of what estate or condition so ever he be, shall cause himself to be served in his house or elsewhere, at dinner, meal, or supper, or at any other time, with more than two messes, and each mess of two sorts of victuals at the utmost, be it of Flesh or Fish, with the common sorts of pottage, without sauce or any other sort of victuals: and if any many choose to have sauce for his mess he well may, provided it be not made at great cost: and if flesh or fish be to be mixed therein, it shall be of two sorts only at the utmost, either fish or flesh, and shall stand instead of a mess; Except on the principle Feast of the year … on which Days and Feasts every man may be served with three courses at the utmost, after the manner aforesaid …'

 Naturally people soon found a way round that. Previously, sweet custards and flavoured creams would be served as a different dish to a pudding, but if you claimed custard to be sauce, you could eat both together. Meat would have been served as separately from vegetable dishes such as leeks-in-sops, but if you combined the two on one platter they became one course or ‘mess’.

 It is often thought that obesity is a modern problem and people used to eat healthier in the past. That maybe well be true, if by the past, we mean World War II rationing. But obesity certainly wasn’t limited to the present time, as is abundantly clear from the writings of Chaucer and Shakespeare. And little wonder, for a favourite dish served in medieval taverns was Brawn in Sharp Sauce. This consisted of the fat and head-meats of animals cooked and pressed into slabs of jellied brawn, which was then served deep-fried in lard. Was this really any healthier than popping in for a burger?

Records of food provided for workers and servants in Medieval and Tudor times suggest they consumed nearly twice today’s daily recommended calorific intake especially in bread and meat. We explain that by saying that they because they burned it off in manual labour and walking. That was probably true if you were farm worker, a sailor or blacksmith, but the vast numbers of clerks, nobles and those in Holy Orders did very little hard manual work. Yes, horse-riding probably did burn off more calories than driving in car, but I doubt it reduced the weight of the wealth who were carried on their journeys and didn’t have to saddle the horses.

Think of the vast quantities of salt ordinary people consumed especially during in winter and spring, when nearly every piece of meat, fish and even some vegetables would have been pickled or salted to preserve it. Then there was the drink. Records tell us that by the 15th Century those feeding the men and women harvesting in the fields were expected to provide either 6 pints of strong ale or a gallon of small ale daily to each person and that was just during working hours. In the Middle Ages ale, cider, mead or wine were the safe alternatives to water, even though these drinks may have been much weaker than those of today or watered down, the daily alcohol consumption, even of children, must have been a lot higher than today’s daily recommended intake.

 Did their health suffer? Did they die premature deaths? There were, of course many who died from malnutrition and starvation, as well as those who died as a result of over-indulgence. But provided a medieval man or woman survived fevers and accidents, they could expect to live just as long then as now, even on those diets.

Yesterday I went to visit the tomb of Sir John de Sully in Crediton Parish Church, Devon. Sully died in 1387 at the age of 106, having fought in numerous battles including Bannockburn and the battle of Cressy (Crecy). He fought his last battle in Spain (la batille de Spaigne) when he was 86 years old. When he was 105, he was asked in testify in case involving a dispute over a coat of arms. His testimony was recorded along with a large number of other knights who were in their 80’s and 90’s at the time of the trial and also Sir John Chydioke who, like Sully, was over a 100 years old. I wonder what their dietary secret was.

With the exception of World War II, I wonder which period in British history the majority of people would have eaten what today would be regarded as a really healthy diet and which was the worst. Have you ever been tempted to try any of the slimming or health diets of our ancestors?