Letter

Battle Observer,

Woods House, Telford Road,

St LEONARDS,

East Sussex. TN38 9LZ

17, Dukes Hill,

BATTLE

East Sussex. TN33 OLD

02 August 2013.

Dear Editor,

In respect of the headline article dated 02 August 2013 the source quoted, The Chronicle of Battel Abbey, is very clear concerning Duke Williams’s requirements as to the location of the Abbey. In order to remove the confusion that is inherent in the above article I quote from the Chronicle itself. (The Monks) having viewed the scene of the battle, judged it an unsuitable site for so noble a building, but thought a lower place on the western side of the hill more eligible; and there, not to seem remiss in their undertaking they built some little dwellings.

Then later; The King on making careful enquiries as to the progress of the work, was told by the monks that the place where he had determined to build the abbey was situated upon a hill with a parched soil, thy, and destitute of water; and they entreated him that a more convenient spot in the immediate vicinity might be chosen for so important a work. Upon this the king grew angry, and commanded them with all haste to lay the foundations of the temple on the very place where he had achieved victory over his enemy.

A reasonable interpretation of the above quotations, reinforced later in the Chronicle, is the information that the monks did not wish to live on the top of a ridge; accordingly they probably built their temporary accommodation close to where they intended to build the monastic buildings; which possibly was where the Powder Mill Hotel stands today.. On receiving this information William insisted that they build the required monastic establishment on the exact site of the battle; that is where the Abbey buildings exist today. As the antiquity of those buildings is not in doubt, it is reasonable to assume that those buildings stand on the site of the battle.

In respect of the metre wide foundations located in Crowhurst they do not suggest the “little dwellings” quoted in the Chronicle.. I assume the little dwellings quoted were temporary accommodation for the monks and their associates for when they set about the task of building the monastery, eventually Battle High Street took on that role; it is not known what the labour force was but at the beginning there were only four monks identified.

With respect to the comment that the information concerning the false start to the building of the monastery has and is being suppressed the following is the antecedents of the Chronicle.

Circa 1175 the Battle monks wrote, in Latin, a justification for the existence of the monastery and its privileges. These documents eventually became part of the British Museums collection at the Museum’s inception in 1700.

Some scholarly research on the documents then took place and in 1851 Mark Anthony

Lower published his translation, with commentary, under the title The Chronicle of

Battel Abbey; the above quotations are from that source.

In the mid 1900’s a local historian Eleanor Searle published under the same title her translation; this book is available through the East Sussex Library Service.

If as reported English Heritage is interested in what has been discovered at Crowhurst that interest is the same as of all other historians; it need not assume that credibility is being accorded to an alternative site for the 1066 battle. For my part the above information rejects that interpretation.

C. Braybrooke.

Author; A History of The Parish Church of Battle: Battle Abbey’s Surviving Chapel.