Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 4891245, member: 110504&quot;]...Found this one, on a document I&#039;ve been working on, and not, for too many years now.&nbsp; (287 pages, fully annotated; single-spaced, smaller font than I get along with; doubt I&#039;ll ever finish it.)&nbsp; Yes, these are the Only Pics; Sorry.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1180435[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]1180439[/ATTACH]</p><p>Out of sheer sloth, here&#039;s the description, lifted directly from the draft.</p><p>AR cut halfpenny of Carlisle, issued in the name of King Stephen. Cross moline / ‘Watford’ type, originally issued c. 1136-1145.</p><p>Obv. Collar, forearm and right hand of Stephen.</p><p>[From c. 8 o’clock:] +STI[EFNE REX] (‘STIEFNE REX;’ King Stephen).</p><p>Rev. Right half of a cross moline, fleurs de lis in each angle.</p><p>[From 1 o’clock:] +E[R]EB/[-\Id ON CAI]2. (‘[H]EREBALD ON CAR[LISLE];’ the moneyer Herebald of Carlisle).</p><p>North 873, Spink 1278.</p><p><br /></p><p>The ‘Watford’ issues of Carlisle have recently been reassigned from official issues of Stephen to autonomous ones of Henry of Scots, on the basis of Scots control of Carlisle during the period. The problem provides an interesting instance of the dialectic between historical and specifically numismatic research. On the numismatic evidence, the historian David Crouch has argued that Carlisle was part of ‘a continuing English [royal], not Scots, polity....well into the 1140s, when the local issues of King David [of Scots] and Earl Henry superseded [the ‘Watford’ coinage]’ (David Crouch, <u>The Reign of King Stephen</u> (Harlow, Essex /London, Longman /Pearson, 2000), 323 and n. 13).</p><p><br /></p><p>More recently, the Fitzwilliam Museum, on its website for the Conte Collection of Norman and Angevin coins, has reassigned the ‘Watford’ coinage of Carlisle to Henry of Scots, on the basis of the earlier consensus that “Carlisle was established as a mint c. 1123 by Henry I, but it was captured in January 1136 by the Scots under whose control it remained until 1157.” (The entry for this issue is found below: <u><a href="http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/conte/gallery/gallery_09.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/conte/gallery/gallery_09.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/conte/gallery/gallery_09.html</a></u>.) As Matthew elaborates, Henry of Huntingdon’s father, David I of Scots, lost no time exploiting the instability of Stephen’s reign. </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; “Hav[ing] seen Henry I’s creation of a new bishopric at Carlisle in 1133&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; as a bid to consolidate the very recently imposed English control over&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Cumbria[, David was] determin[ed] to restore some independence of&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; action after years of English protection, and his plans involved recovery&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; of lands not only in Cumbria but in northern-eastern England [at the&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; opposite end of the border], which he believed to be properly subject to&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; the kings of Scotland.” (Matthew, Donald. <u>King Stephen</u>. London: Hambledon and London, 2003. P. 69.)</p><p><br /></p><p>...And, wouldn&#039;t you know it, the operant pages of the Fitzwilliam Museum website seem to be down.&nbsp; (--Unless it&#039;s my desktop, now in the middling stages of electro-neural dementia.)&nbsp; But <i>if</i> this was issued by Henry of Huntingdon in Stephen&#039;s name, it would qualify not only as a Scottish issue, but, at least with that margin of rhetorical license, a Stephen-era &#039;baronial&#039; one.&nbsp; Henry &#039;of Scots&#039; was also earl of Huntingdon, by maternal descent, which may have been a factor in his continuation of the Watford issue.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in