Charity searches for descendants of rioters involved in 1525 uprising
Wednesday, June 4 marks the 500th anniversary of the 1525 riot, which is seen by historians as a 'harbinger' of Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries a decade later.
English Heritage, the charity which looks after the ruins of Bayham Abbey, are now searching for the relatives of the villagers who stormed the Abbey 500 years ago.
Michael Carter, English Heritage historian, said: 'The Bayham Abbey uprising is a fascinating precursor to Henry VIII's religious reforms, a harbinger not only of the dissolution of the monasteries just ten years later, but also of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
'This act of rebellion could have cost them their lives and, as we reach the 500th anniversary of the riot, we are keen to remember and celebrate these brave men.'
More than a decade before the dissolution of the monasteries, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Henry VIII's chief adviser at the time, had already begun to suppress many of England's smaller monasteries, to fund new university colleges at Oxford and Ipswich.
Cardinal Wolsey's eventual successor, Thomas Cromwell, began the dissolution of every English monastery in 1536, under Henry VIII's instruction.
On June 4 1525, more than 100 men with painted faces, armed with longbows, crossbows, swords and clubs, assembled at the abbey to reinstate the evicted canons, the priests living within the abbey.
'Whilst they will undoubtedly have feared the loss of their spiritual leaders, their loss of income would have been of equal concern,' said Mr Carter.
They stormed the gatehouse and temporarily restored the canons, until they were removed a week later and 31 men were indicted by the Crown.
The rioters were predominantly local tradesmen, including shoemakers, labourers and farmers.
English Heritage is searching for the descendants of those men, who are listed on their website.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Is it time to put Margaret Thatcher on our banknotes?
The Bank of England wants to rethink banknotes and has announced a public consultation in order to generate suggestions about what to put on them. 'Banknotes are more than just an important means of payment,' declares Victoria Cleland, the Bank's chief cashier, whose signature is on notes. 'They serve as a symbolic representation of our collective national identity and an opportunity to celebrate the UK.' So, who should we put on our next banknotes? My vote, 35 years after she left office, would be to put Margaret Thatcher on the ten pound note. The 'Maggie' would become the go-to note. How better to celebrate a free-marketeer and our first woman prime minister – a committed monetarist at that – who also helped defeat Communism, than with a note of her own? Talk about putting money where her mouth was. Putting Thatcher on our banknotes would ensure that we continue the tradition of being able to gaze upon the scrunched-up visage of a noble or great personage from our past, every time we reach into our pockets to pay for something, however mundane. Consider Sir Christopher Wren, bewigged and magisterial on the old, enormous, copper-coloured fifty (from 1981 to 1994). Or what about Charles Darwin (2000-2018) on the less recently out of date tenner? Then there was Wellington (1971-1990) on the old grey fiver, the one that had the Queen in seventies Silver Jubilee pomp. These were banknotes that fizzed with pride and self-assurance. In the years since, our currency has worn Charles Dickens, Elizabeth Fry, Turner and Churchill. Every one of them made you feel slightly better about the world, one financial exchange at a time. So good they have been, in fact, that you might argue that choosing who to put on the banknotes is one of the things that the Bank of England has actually got right in recent decades. But now they think we might want something different – not necessarily people, though they are good enough for our American friends and their precious Greenbacks. Is this a desire to ape the bland architectural motifs of the euro notes? Or is it that in our modern times, since so many figures of English and British history have been 'problematised', it's simply easier to do without them at all? Erasing the past is easier than understanding it. After all, if like public museums our notes need to be 'decolonised' that poses problems for figures such as Sir Francis Drake or even good old Sir Winston – and just remember what he did to the French navy, too … tut-tut, that's no good for Anglo-French relations either. Then there's the inevitable issue of diversity that comes from history. It was back in 2013 that people were upset about the lack of women on our notes – except for the Queen, of course, who was on all of them. So that got fixed, thanks in part to Jane Austen, who arrived on the tenner in 2017. But still, women are represented in proportion to the demographic reality. And what about representation from Britain's ethnic minorities and the disabled? The problem is that, with only four notes to go with, you can't possibly tick every box, so someone gets let down, unlike – say, the casting of EastEnders or the television news where you can scrupulously try to enforce a quota so everyone feels included. There are, however, potential solutions without resorting to bland pictures of road and rail infrastructure: you could introduce more notes, such as a £100 note to account for inflation (about which I've written on Coffee House). Perhaps even a £200 note; that way you have more notes to go around to represent different groups. Or you could, of course, just retreat altogether and decorate banknotes with something else, like Mini Metros or pictures of new towns like Harlow or Milton Keynes, or public buildings, or HS2 or even ships. The Titanic would be popular. The fact is that none of it quite floats the boat like the human connection with great individuals and inspiring lives. 'Things' are not what make our nation great, it's the people – the statesmen, artists, scientists, the writers, the businessmen. So, who should join Thatcher on our banknotes? Would it be acceptable to adorn the £5 note with Mahatma Gandhi? He's a pretty different successor to Sir Winston in the fiver slot, wouldn't you agree? He was, after all, a British subject for 77 of his 78 years, and if we wish to appropriately cleanse ourselves of our colonial past (which, of course, we do), then who could be better than the visionary who successfully drove the British out of India, armed only with a spinning wheel? It would surely also be popular with many Britons of south Asian descent, too. And if we want to celebrate the role of women in our society, why don't we put JK Rowling on the £20? She isn't just a global literary phenomenon, but she's a philanthropist of the highest order. She is also unarguably a determined champion of women's rights. It would be a positive move for the union, too, for the Bank of England to go for a Scot. That leaves us with the £50. My vote would be the Queen. Not the current Queen, much as I like her, but the Queen that made us and whose reign still defines us. A 'QE2′ would be a fine fifty. But whatever we end up doing with our bank notes, we shouldn't resort to profiles of bridges or the outline of buildings, drawings with all the soul of architects' models. That's what you do when – unlike Britain – you don't have a unified national story to celebrate. The faces on our banknotes are like those on Mount Rushmore. The good news is we can change them from time to time. Like them or not, these are the people that made us and that made us great – and sometimes angry. If we take the people from our banknotes then, know this, we'll De La Rue the day.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Is Britain ready for France's most controversial novel?
This Saturday is the centenary of the birth of one of France's most controversial writers. Jean Raspail, who died in 2020, wrote many books during his long and varied life, but only one, The Camp of the Saints, is remembered. Even his admirers and sympathisers admit that the book isn't a classic in the literary sense. In an article to mark the publication of a recent biography of Raspail, Le Figaro said the novel was guilty of a 'certain kitschness, clumsiness, awkwardness and a nihilism that seems forced'. More than that, it has been accused of being overtly racist. Yet what made The Camp of the Saints such a sensation when it was published – and increasingly today among the online right – was its narrative. Raspail explained the idea for it came to him in 1972 as he looked out at the Mediterranean from the Côte d'Azur. 'The immigration problem didn't exist yet,' he said. 'The question suddenly arose: 'What if they came?'' In The Camp of the Saints, a million migrants from India land in the south of France in an armada of small boats. The left welcomes them with open arms and cries of: 'We're all from the Ganges now!' The French government requests that the rest of Europe accepts some of the arrivals, which it does. Seeing the generosity of Europe, more migrants from other Third World countries decide to head to the Old Continent for a new life. Europe collapses. The Camp of the Saints was savaged by much of the American press when it was published across the Atlantic in 1975, and not just because of its language. 'Preposterous' was the reaction of the New York Times, which mocked Raspail's 'fancy that sometime in the near future the Third World, protesting the unequal division of the world's goods and western indifference to its misery, strikes back'. In 2019, the NYT returned to the attack in an article entitled 'A Racist Book's Malign and Lingering Influence'. According to the paper, 'what Raspail described as a 'parable' came to be seen as a canonical text in white nationalist circles'. It namechecked Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump as two politicians influenced by the book. Given its reputation, The Camp of the Saints is possibly the closest thing we have to an actual 'banned book' in the English-speaking world. It has never been published in Britain, and while it was reissued by a small American publisher in 1995, secondhand paperbacks cost upwards of £200 on Amazon. But that is about to change. The novel is soon to be released in English again, this time by an independent American publisher called Vauban Books, run by Ethan Rundell. Rundell is a Francophile who studied in Paris in the 1990s (as well as Berkeley and Trinity College, Cambridge) and worked for many years in France as a translator. He founded Vauban Books in 2023 with Louis Betty, a professor of French at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Their mission is to translate into English books in French that are victims of 'ideological curation and gatekeeping… some voices are amplified, often for no other reason than they flatter the prevailing doxa on this side of the Atlantic; other voices, some of them quite prominent, are neglected or even actively suppressed when what they have to say runs counter to it'. Among the authors published so far by Vauban are Renaud Camus, the originator of the 'Great Replacement Theory' – which holds that ethnic French and white European populations are being replaced by non-white people. Camus was recently barred from entering Britain because the government said his 'presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good'. Rundell tells me it was a 'great honour' to be the translator of Camus. 'To publish Camus is to discover just how far we have gone in the direction of a post-literary society,' he says. 'His words are on all lips. Everyone has an opinion about him. And yet shockingly few people still seem capable of marshalling the basic curiosity – or perhaps I should say intellectual self-regard – needed to consult the source before rendering judgment on it.' He believes the same applies to Raspail, which is why Vauban is reissuing his best-known work in September. 'It has become an object of reflexive condemnation, even though many of those condemning it have never read a word that Raspail wrote,' says Rundell. 'On purely liberal grounds – informed debate, the free circulation of ideas, the need to make important primary texts available to the public at large – the case for publishing it is self-evident.' Even some supporters of the book take issue with many of the expressions it uses, but Rundell is braced for the criticism: 'I expect some people will be very angry that we are bringing it out, not least because it gives the lie to the imaginary, parallel world the progressive intelligentsia has constructed for itself and still seeks to impose upon the rest of us.' Bien-pensants hate the book, adds Rundell, because it 'relentlessly mocks that same intelligentsia, which in many ways has hardly changed since the book was first published in 1973'. Vauban Books hopes to have The Camp of the Saints ready for pre-order in Britain and Europe by the end of this month, although Rundell says he fears the distributor might 'refuse to carry the title'. With that in mind he intends to contact Toby Young's Free Speech Union. 'There may well be a battle ahead,' says Rundell. The Camp of the Saints isn't a great book, but it is an important one. Its concern about mass immigration can often shift into revelling in racist tropes. In that sense, it speaks to our current debates, where the line between demographic worries and outright nativism is frequently blurred. But as Rod Dreher in the American Conservative has written: 'You don't have to endorse Raspail's radical racialist vision to recognise that there is diagnostic value in his novel.'
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
Who really built this country?
Anyone who has visited Canada or Australia in recent years might have noticed an interesting new tradition. This is the trend for issuing a 'land acknowledgement' at the start of any public event. Before discussion gets under way, some bureaucrat or other will get up and note that we are all fortunate enough to be on the land of X, and then garble the name of some not-especially-ancient tribe. The moment gives everyone a feeling of deep meaning and naturally achieves nothing. Even our King indulged in some of this in May when he opened the latest session of the Canadian parliament. Before getting down to the meat of his speech, Charles said: 'I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.' You would have thought that by dint of his being King and addressing a parliament the land had been very much ceded. In any case this is the modern routine. Every-body pays tribute to an extinct or almost extinct tribe, giving the sense that anyone other than the members of the said tribe is an interloper and that indigenous peoples are everywhere and always to be revered. Their ways are forever understood to be the ways of peace. Their customs, habits, crafts and learnings are to be discussed as having a connection to some ancient wisdom, long lost to our own wretched materialistic societies. One interesting thing is that concern for indigenous rights has exceptionally firm borders. The delineation of those borders are clear. All indigenous peoples must be allowed to have rights, just so long as the people in question are not white and do not originate from our own continent. The brouhaha over last weekend's Glastonbury festival nicely clarified some of this. Pascal Robinson-Foster, singer of the rap group Bob Vylan, has been much commented upon because of his 'death to the IDF' chant. But another of his charming ditties got far less attention. This one consisted of him jumping around screaming: 'Heard you want your country back. Ha. Shut the fuck up.' As he repeated this, things like 'This country was built on the backs of immigrants' flashed up on a screen at the back of the stage. I'm not sure that anyone could come up with a more irksome and divisive message if they tried. The taunt is clear: 'If you are English and think this is your country then I have news for you. Nope. It's ours now.' Others have been ratcheting up a similar message. At last year's general election, a man called Shakeel Afsar ran as an Independent in Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, and was only a few thousand votes away from becoming the area's MP. He is the sort of person who is usually described by local media as a 'firebrand'. I'm not sure that does him justice. His public life has mainly consisted of insisting that Birmingham will not allow the inventor of Islam – Mohammed – to be in any way criticised or ridiculed. Afsar is also not a fan of Prime Minister Modi of India, for obvious sectarian reasons. In a recent interview, he was asked about the line that a few brave souls have had the temerity to utter in recent years: that if you want to bring your Third World beliefs to our country and replay the same failed playbook here, then perhaps there are other countries – including your family's country of origin – in which it might be better for you to live. This was how Afsar responded: 'Our forefathers were instrumental in rebuilding this country after the second world war. It was our grandfathers who worked in the factories 20 hours. It was our grandfathers who came here and ran the infrastructure. It was our grandfathers who brought you the lovely curry which is your national dish. So how can you tell us to go? We're not going nowhere. We're here to stay. We're not here to take part. We're here to take over.' That would seem to me to be almost the definition of a threatening statement, and one almost perfectly designed to stir up the worst sentiments of the human heart. Personally I feel these sentiments throbbing through me when I hear statements like this, or those Mr Robinson-Foster decided to project from the stage at Glastonbury. Keir Starmer, Danny Boyle (who directed the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony) and others have long insisted that this country was effectively built by the Windrush generation. If they had pitched this ball a little shorter they might have been on to something. If they had said that our country had a rich and distinct history and that we owe 'something' to those who came after the last war then they might have brought more people along with them. But the suggestion that the British were an essentially uninteresting and bad people until the noble migrants came to rescue us is a story that is not only false but insulting. So back to the retort that this new type of anti-British demagogue inevitably wishes to provoke. They want a backlash along the lines of: 'Actually this is not your country. It's mine. Your grandfathers may have done something, but mine did far more for a lot longer and to much greater effect. The benefits of the recipe for curry we might litigate another time. But I prefer everything that was already ours.' And so the language of indigenous rights that has been pushed on our friends in Australia and North America finally comes back around to the people it was never meant to assist. Yes – many feel they would like their country back. Many do not wish their country to be taken over. We were here first, they'll think. That's how it works, right?
