Fw: BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior reconstructed
Peter A. Kincaid
a hundred year period, lots of people could have come and
gone with no 'surviving' record to pull an obit from. It is also
convenient to pick someone whose family died out.
A key point not addressed is why the person was buried in
the royal chapel! I'm sorry but I can't see how this Sir John
de Strickley would have the honour over the hundreds of
other knights who would have lived and died in this period.
If they were going to pull names out of the hat why not
Sir William Francis who helped recapture Edinburgh castle
from the English. He is also referred to as "le Frank" suggesting
nativity from northern France. His family was prominent
(keepers of royal castles) and he would have been somewhat of
a hero given the story of his initiative in recapturing Edinburgh
castle from the English.
They should try DNA testing on the fellows teeth.
Peter
> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: Cherryexile <>
>>To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
>>Subject: Re: BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior reconstructed
>>Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 04:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
>> [snip]
>>In the record for 1340-1 the third name on the list is followed by
>>both 'Miles' and 'obit' and it shows that Sir John de Strickley he
>>died in Stirling Castle, on the 10th October 1341. They go on to say
>>that further research suggests that the family has died out.
>>
>>The Scots recaptured Stirling in 1342.
>>
>>So, although there is no proof of who was buried in the Castle, there
>>is strong circumstantial evidence that this is the identity of the
>>skeleton (give or take whatever else could have happened 50 years
>>either side of his death).
>
>
>
>
Cherryexile
wrote:
> They just pulled a name out of the hat more or less. Over
> a hundred year period, lots of people could have come and
> gone with no 'surviving' record to pull an obit from. It is also
> convenient to pick someone whose family died out.
>
> A key point not addressed is why the person was buried in
> the royal chapel! I'm sorry but I can't see how this Sir John
> de Strickley would have the honour over the hundreds of
> other knights who would have lived and died in this period.
>
> If they were going to pull names out of the hat why not
> Sir William Francis who helped recapture Edinburgh castle
> from the English. He is also referred to as "le Frank" suggesting
> nativity from northern France. His family was prominent
> (keepers of royal castles) and he would have been somewhat of
> a hero given the story of his initiative in recapturing Edinburgh
> castle from the English.
>
> They should try DNA testing on the fellows teeth.
>
> Peter
>
While I don't disagree with the sentiment that there is a lot of room
for alternatives, the programme did not claim they could be sure who
the person was.
One other point I didn't cover was the context for the burial. The
programme suggested that it was not normal to bury people within the
Castle and our man was one of a group of 10 that included a female.
The female's skull had been smashed with a Mace and still had two
square holes in it. The suggestion was that the burial may have been
more one of expediency, rather than high honour. An English garrison
in the Scottish winter would not necessarily be in a position to bury
a number of bodies anywhere else.
That said, they only spent the money on analysing the one man and only
did a visual inspection of the female.
Neil
Ian Goddard
> They just pulled a name out of the hat more or less. Over a hundred
> year period, lots of people could have come and gone with no 'surviving'
> record to pull an obit from. It is also convenient to pick someone
> whose family died out.
For at least the period when the English had a garrison there - which
happened to be almost right on the median of the 14C range - the
occupants of the castle seem to have been well documented. It wasn't
clear to what extent this applied to the remainder of the period. If
the programme hadn't been put together in the current dumbed-down BBC
fashion (lots of aerial shots of the university, people driving about
the country and a picture of the O2 dome to show we're now in London
where the National Archives are - but not in the O2 dome!) where might
have been time to tell us.
I think the fact that the family had died out was supposed to be a case
of cause and effect.
> A key point not addressed is why the person was buried in the royal
> chapel!
I don't think the programme (as opposed to the advert masquerading as a
news item in true BBC style) actually said it was a royal chapel.
As far as I could make out it was a room later adapted as a kitchen or
possibly stratified under a kitchen which they thought was a chapel.
Sir John de Strickley was a member of an English garrison which held the
castle for a prolonged period for military reasons; there was no
suggestion that it was a royal residence.
> I'm sorry but I can't see how this Sir John de Strickley would
> have the honour over the hundreds of other knights who would have lived
> and died in this period.
The stable isotope ratios suggested an upbringing in the S of England or
W France which would have cut out a fair proportion of the other
possibles which is why they went trawling TNA. The archivist seems to
have considered at least one other possible but been able to eliminate
it - maybe others were also eliminated. See my comment above.
> If they were going to pull names out of the hat why not Sir William
> Francis who helped recapture Edinburgh castle from the English. He is
> also referred to as "le Frank" suggesting nativity from northern
> France. His family was prominent (keepers of royal castles) and he
> would have been somewhat of a hero given the story of his initiative in
> recapturing Edinburgh castle from the English.
But this was Stirling, not Edinburgh.
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk