 Gallwch chi'n gweld, y Fwmddysgol yn ymwneud yng Nghwylion, i gynhyrchu i Llyfrgell Cymru wedi bod yn ddweud eu roi arfermohonol yn yr Penlygu, a dweud yn cyfligoedd mynd i'r unig o'r sylfe ar hyn ac mae'n rhaid i'w rhaid i'i amgwyl ymddysgol, As to see who actually been able of it. Six days earlier, the arterial on the western front had temporarily fallen silent following the conclusion of the second battle at Artau, in which more than a hundred thousand men died. Griffin had many interesting things to say and really his talk was published in archaeology. rydym weithio bod y penwydau yn cael ei ddysgu'r ffordd i'r ysgolwyr ynw'n ddysgu'r pwytynol. Ond Gryffin wedi gael yn dweud o gyffraddol, mae'r gwaith yn gymhwyl pwytynol sy'n gwybod i'n ddysgu'r pwytynol, fel y gallu ymddangos ymddangos y bydd yn y cyd-riol, am ydych chi'n gwybod i'r ysgolwyr, a'r ddysgu'r pwytynol. bywch chi'n gweld i'n ystrygu'r cyffindiau a'u llungellau, ond yn rhoi rhan o'r llyfriddau cyffindiau, sy'n gweld i'n meddwl i bwysig o'r llungellau i'r clywedol yng Nghymru, o'r llungellau bwysigol? On dweud y cyffindiau, yng Nghymru yng nghymru, yn y gallu'r llungellau i'r llungellau ac yn de allan'r cyffindiau Was it perhaps the work of a royal hero? Or was it a role that benefactors, as my friend Cecil Angusmith has always maintained in seeing in the picture on the screen? It was even first introduced me that approached through in February 1983. It cannot be a straightforward role called people arriving in Canterbury and giving money to the cathedral because it would be solitary exception of the Bay of Christian Monarchs. There are no common arms here, despite the fact that the cathedral was still the major centre of pilgrimage at the time. Why was it another 90 years before someone else came to pick up where everything left off? I will attempt to answer all of these questions during my talk. We must begin by understanding a little bit of the basic geography of the cloister, and you'll be getting to see this slide again, so don't try to memorise it all now. I'm going to begin by talking about the South York that's important to realise this slide against the cathedral name, and that here we have the all-important martyrdom of Thomas Beckett in the transept and the chapter house of the site of the cloister. In 1377 the nave was demolished, and it was while the nave was being rebuilt that archbishop submarine that was brutally murdered in the Pesence Revot of 1381. The cathedral was struck only a year later by another calamity in the form of an earthquake which damaged both the cloister and the chapter house. In 1396 archbishop Courtney left the princely salon of £200 in his will to rebuild the south walk of the cloister, and I wonder if perhaps this walk had been demolished in 1377. The south walk is very obviously different from the remainder of the cloister unless it contains little heraldry. It has rather beautiful figurative core walls, including many human faces. One of these faces looks very much like a female version of Richard II, but unfortunately I didn't have a picture because I long suspected that this is the face of Richard's mother, Princess Jo, the fair maid of Kent. The arms depicted are quite small and altrucy, as you can see, particularly the shield on the left here, which is a part of the primary. They include those of archbishop Courtney and his successor, Thomas Anger. Suddenly, in a pivotal position, outside the doorways of the martyrdom of Thomas Beckham, you see carved large and prominently displayed the arms of the archbishop's sister, Julianne de Boone, Daryl Jakates of Heroddith Essex and Northampton. Close by, we'll notice the work of arms of Portugal that you can see there restored only in this picture. The only other arms in this position of privilege were those of the monastery itself. This conjunction of shields brings to mind the year 1455, when the archbishop received his sister into the Cathedral of Compraternity. In the same year he married his nephew, the Earl of Ambrill, to a daughter of the King of Portugal. This martyrdom Bay, or Bay 1, as it tends to be named, sits as a point of transition. Here, slightly small, but we can make it out. We have a small number of these new larger shields in the next two bays to be constructed. Here in Bay 36, we have the arms of Fogg, and in Bay 35, importantly, we have the arms of no arm or moon. Sir Thomas Fogg and his wife, Joan de Lloynes, were great benefactors of the cathedral who were together admitted to the Compraternity in 1404, when they made the donation towards the building of the chapter house. Joan made the moon, made a very large request of the cathedral in her will on her death in 1404. Her arms were prominently displayed in the register book of the Compraternity, here, of course, of the arms of Fogg, where there should be double-tailed lion. In Bay 35, we must make the presence of a small shield here resembling those found in the South Walk. So this is the last of the small shields. It's also made worthy that the lions on the arms of the moon do not match the style of carving that is used in a cloister. It looks as though a new expert in a relic carving has been brought in. There's a new plan that emerged, and indeed all these subsequently erected bays are completely surrounding it. It's been assumed that the South Walk was constructed from east to west, which I now believe it was built from west to east. We urgently need a chronology to inform us how and why these decisions were reached. It is only known from the fragmentary building accounts that the cloister was finished in 1414. Was the South Walk completed and then the remaining cloister built later on? Well that is still a tenor or a hypothesis, but the observations that the martyrdom men suggest while the cloister was built is part of a single continuous process. A critical nugget of information is that the account record, where as 20 million pounds have been left to build the South Walk and its 10 days, the final cost was 300 pounds. The indifference in cost is explained by the decision to insert highly decorated bolting rather than simply replacing what had been there previously. This gives us a unit cost per day at 30 pounds. Between 1411 and 1413, 540 pounds was expended on the cloister, which equates to 18 bays at a rate of one every two months, which feels about right. In 1414, a final 95 pounds was expended equating to three bays, which fits in well with the heraldry, as I will explain a little later. The building accounts are lost from the period 146 to 1410. It's known that the work on the chapter house was finished in 1405 and that the total cost of the builders of that and that. It seems reasonable to assume a steady rate of building of the cloister, which replaced the commencement in July 148. None of the heraldry is at variance with this chronology, as another curious finding has been that the direction of construction was changed not once, but twice. An understanding of why this happened helps to determine some of the rationale behind the whole project. The heraldry in front of the chapter house dates 1412 towards the end of the build, by the other end of the south wall contains data information suggesting the year 1410. In my proposed chronology, the first day, day nine, was built in July 148 and through to day 35 in March and April 1410. The martydom Bay 1 that was going up in November, December 14, at night, just at the time of Thomas Aaron, the designer's chancellor, had been with him after three years as head of government. He is known to have been turned to Canterbury and spent Christmas there, quite likely assisted to the arm that was with him. We will never know whether the arm selected the Bay 1 for a decision taken that Christmas or part of a predetermined plan, but he was able to observe the arm as they went up and to see how impressively it looked inside you. His many visitors were sure he had been equally impressed. At this moment, the priori was in debt due to the cost of the cathedral we built. Archbishop Aaronville knew about using heraldry to solicit donations towards building works. His time as Archbishop of York coincided with the first usage of the welded bosses in the vaulting of York Minister. The first use of the same idea in the council we made, rightly followed, is transferred to the council we built in 1396. Very quickly donations began to come in on the understanding that the donors' arms would be placed in their boister. The only possible reason for switching the direction of the bill of importing 10 would be that already the idea of a row of arms in stone had emerged. There is something specially needed for the important bays outside the chapter house for which more time was needed to prepare. Here we see Bay 10 not as it looks now, but as I believe it looked at the end of the many more period, about 100 years before the first surviving antiquarian records of the cloister. Time prevents me from going into detail about some of the interesting dating material in this play, but there is a predominance of arms of Kentish families. These being the first opportunity to make donations that perhaps being at hand with the new values devise. The most significant painting shield in Bay 10 is that of Master John Hinton, a very wealthy cleric who was personally clothed as a month by the Archbishop. It was very March 1410, which must have provided the occasion for a significant donation, and this play began to be contracted in June 1410. Although, as with any row of arms, there are random aspects to how the arms are collected, a careful study of every shield in the cloister is still with close observations of the connections between them. This row of arms is highly structured. It evinces a guiding hand, and without a scintilla of doubt, that guiding hand was taught as angles. It was not the King nor by extension, but it had been the work of one of the King's heralds. We sit here in a period just before Eldrie became carefully regulated by the Crown. It was Henry Pryd who first gave his heralds territorial responsibilities until he appointed the first guard of King of Arms. The Archbishop had been familiar with manuscript rows of arms, which traditionally began with kings and servants, followed by the nobility and then by knights and squires. Depending on the status of the person for whom the row was compiled, his own family might either proceed or follow that of their kings and saints, or might almost inconsequentially be hidden among the knights and squires. In the cloister, the row of arms is headed outside the door of the chapter house with the Archbishop himself and his immediate family. In the adjacent bay is a row special bay dedicated to the recently deceased King Henry IV, of which more later, which I call the bay. Counting down from the royal bay, in sequence of construction, we have at Beaumont family bay the Archbishop's mother having been first married to the royal of Beaumont. A mwybryr family bay, the Archbishop, niece having married to Thomas Mwybryr, the old marshal of Duke of Norfolk. 11th wrth family bay, the Esfaidon mwybryr, being configured in the royal administration and worked closely with the Archbishop. And finally, appointings family bay, your appointings being the most prominent of the Archbishop's knights who waited upon him on several occasions. The second changing direction of the building of the cloister came in January 1413. Until that point, the building was proceeding in a clockwise direction. Following the completion of Bay 25, in November to December 1412, clockwise work was halted and recommended in an anti-clockwise direction from Bay 34. The evidence for this is that the penultimate bay to be constructed in number 27 includes the arms of our successor Henry Chichew. Arolyw of Darwin on February 1414, just as Bay 27 was being repaired, having met the plans for Bay 26. That he was the sole author of the cloister scheme appears to be absolutely confirmed by the fact that the last bay to be constructed was simply a repetition by the reversal of Bay 23, leaving the biocentral shields for a future donor. Arolyw of Darwin's breath, otherwise had no idea what to do without Tom's angle to guide him. So he had no plan on the bay 26, so I just think that the correct period. The reason why the direction of the building was changed for the second time seems obvious. Henry IV, later with his family archbishop for extended periods during 1412, as his health deteriorated. He had been working more than two months at Christchurch prior. Arolyw had to improve the bay that he had designed for the king before he died. It was not to be, but I would like to show you briefly why that bay was so special and so affectionately created for King Henry IV. It includes all the places visited by King Henry IV in 1392, the Holy Land, the Holy Roman Emperor, Bohemia, Hungary, the island of Rhodes as represented by the arms of the Knights of Rhodes. It includes all his realms and territories, England, Ireland, France, Scotland, Wales and the island man. It includes the Kingdoms of his brothers-in-law and sons-in-law, Castile and Leon, Navarre, Aragon, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Pomerania and Denmark. It includes high points in his life, the visit of the Emperor of Manthair, Peter Locust, to England in 1400, the capture of King Scotland and the visit of the Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes in 1409. It includes the King of the Saints, Edward the Convessor, Edmund and Bethelbert of Kent. We have St Thomas Becket, Henry IV was the first monarch to have St Thomas' oil that he used during the coronation service. We have the arms of St George carried by Henry for his trial by combat with slavery in 1398. With some doubling up, we can put together nine worthy's as well into all this. Julius Caesar represented by the doublehead, the evil of the Holy Roman Empire, Charlemagne by the arms of France, Godfrey de Rihon by the arms of Jerusalem, King Arthur by the three crowns, Moethe, Julius Maccabeus, perhaps by the writh in Petra Troy as already distinguished. We see here invaded by the heart, which also doubles up as Ireland, and this is the first usage of the heart to represent the kingdom of Ireland. Alexander the Great perhaps by the hair of Freys. We're missing one of the nine worthy's, Joshua, but in this place we have Preston John, which is perhaps an unusual choice but it has to be assumed that Henry IV had a peculiar fascination for this historical character. The king is dead, long live the king, Henry IV guiding the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster on the 20th of March 1413. The Archbishop buried the king at Canterbury in June. But less than two weeks after the king's death, he received into the Cathedral of Canterbury the sons of the two nobles who had suffered the tain there for their opposition to that mark. At Moethe, which I'm holding early hunting them, and on this month to be the source of the ring, their arms were placed together later that year in the Moethe family bay, bay 13, and here it is, which I've also called the Bay of Reconciliation because it includes the arms of four men who were bitter enemies of Henry IV and who together indicted the Archbishop and his population to tell him, Earl of Arnill, of trees in 1397, that this savage act orchestrated by Richard the second had resulted in the immediate execution of the Earl and the exile of his brother, the Archbishop. One other member of this group of accusers found the place in the adjacent Bay of Reconciliation 29, while another had already been placed in Arnill's own family bay. The Archbishop here was sharing a considerable mountain immunity and giving out a clear signal that he hoped the ushering of a new reign would bring about an end to the internecine strike that had so brightened the grain of Henry IV. The Archbishop's exile in France in 1397 was followed in 1398 by that of Henry Bollingbroke, some of which he could write as soon as he was in the Moethe. The two men forged a strategic alliance in 1399, which brought about the error of Richard the second. The extent to which Arnill suffered in that period is underscored by a curious shield placed in his personal place to bay, and here it is for a long time, I spent a long time trying to look out which families could possibly be. Then it struck me that we have here in the South Island of St Andrew and that Thomas Arnill was translated by Richard the second to the Sea of St Andrews as the means of getting rid of him, which of course was outside English jurisdiction. And so it seems to me that the message here is that the sword and the sea of St Andrews were my personal cavalry, so the sword may be a living to the death of his brother Walter the Revolution or both. For someone whom Arnill could never forgive was the King's own father, John the Gaunt, who had treated Richard Wixall badly in his capacity as steward of England in 1397 and had sentenced the Earl to death. The absence of his arm from the cloister is striking given that the King was a generous benefactor. There are two instances where his arms are called for, donations having been made by the King's full sister Elizabeth of Lancaster married to John Holland and the half sister Catherine of Lancaster married to the King of Castile than they are. In both instances their paternal arms will be towed to be replaced by the new word arms adopted by Henry IV in around 1403. This will seem to be a clear example of Danartium moriae. Gauntapam, the leachon further confirms the fact that the cloister was in no sense a royal project. No way do we find the arms of Henry IV's beloved wife Mary de Boon, the mother of his six children. No way do we find explicit reference to the King's sister Elizabeth of Queen of Portugal, nor do we have his daughter Blanche, married in 1402, to Lily Duke of Bavariae, who took with her that magnificent royal crown now housed in Munich. Gauntaside, the Archbishop omitted some surprising individuals to have their arms included in the scheme, most notably Sir John Oatcastle, who he well knew to be a dangerous religious radical. He is here along with five other suspected or known lollars. It was not until after Henry IV's death that Oatcastle paid the ultimate price for his heresy and his anarchist views in being burnt alive. It must be wondered what game of cat and mouse was being played making these directions. These proto-prosistence who sought the abolition of the monasteries were unlikely to have looked for the intercession of the monks to reduce time spent in Urgatria. The final tally of the cloistered illness further supports the direct personal involvement of Thomas Arandall. The total, the complete tally of shields and other devices is 856, of which 576 will be unique. This comprises 365 families, of whom 51 were peerage families, 21 principalities, 12 religious houses, nine bishops, seven saints, three heroes, four cities or towns, two priests, one monk and God in the form of the Holy Trinity. It is interesting to note that God's arms are quite similar to those of the Archbishop of Canterbury's at the time which I suppose is pity. Altogether, 33% of the shield that the donors can be linked directly to the Archbishop himself. Of course, my intention is that he actually met all of them, or probably all of them personally, but certainly we can say that he met a third of them without a shadow of a doubt. 14% were directly linked to then and forth, almost half of the Duchy of Lancaster, which should not surprise us giving the fact that Thomas Arandall Chancellor put quite a long period of time during the reign. The candle breakdown of the shields by counting shows that every county is represented, but those are the most over-represented of those where the Archbishop had virtually resided Kent, London and Sussex. For instance, 22% were linked to Kent. Now this shouldn't be totally surprising, there are obviously proximity factors here, but my intention is that Thomas Arandall collected the donors in a book which travelled with him that these were not people just banging on the door of the Canterbury Cathedral. Most of the counties that have a strong Duchy of Lancaster presence tend to be over-represented, which is not surprising even with the Lancasterian emphasis. It's been proved by explaining why it's taken a hundred years to arrive at this new analysis. Apart from the obvious issue of the necessary scale of the project with so many shields to consider, what has deterred others has been the incomplete and highly contradictory nature of the antiquarian sources. Yet these sources are crucially important given that many of the carved shields are of a generic type such as a single lion rampant, simple cross, bars and vessels which are quite meaningless without knowledge of their original colour. Medieval paint on stonework was quite ephemeral and needed periodic restoration. It's evident that the painting was taking place even in the Tudor era and that erroneous painting took place. In the first antiquarian whose records of survival should scarlet made the Grand Relation of 1599 but noted colours for only 13 shields. Thomas Billpott visiting on the 2nd of March 1613 recorded colours for seven shields out of the 690 that he sketched. The course that he took that day is problematic in that it's been the cause of much subsequent confusion. His manuscript was copied by an unknown scholar who recorded additional colours, probably within a few decades, but Billpott's erratic course quite likely caused the colours to be added in the wrong places in some instances. And this wasn't the end of the confusion that Billpott caught. About the same time as Billpott, an unknown antiquarian recorded 683 in an assigned colour to 79 shields, the manuscript now resides in the library here. Taken into consideration that other sources provide evidence of erroneous painting that quoted shields in both the 16th and the 17th centuries. So the top two shields recorded around 1600 are very, very distinctive and identifiable, shields that are clearly in the wrong colours. And this is why they were invented because the unknown antiquarian was, of course, needs a rather curious model to work out what they are. Now, here we have the arms of hawks that should have been, but already by 1600, they've been painted like this. And by wounds there, they've been painted as this. So this is evidence of two good paintings. But here we have the arms as they should be in an upper-tripoly window in the neck, which survived the Puritan assault in 1642. During the reign of Charles I at the time of King Barbery, it's quite certain that another painting was sponsored in the 1620s or 30s by the notorious antiquarian forger, that Sir Edward Deary, in his library, the Society of Antichrist Manuscript, probably once resided. You can see that he appropriated some of the shields for the two bones, many of the shields of Deary. And this is what they were doing originally. The manuscript came to light a few years ago in the hand of Brian Fawcett, the father of English archaeology. It's now in the possession of the Kentish historian, Duncan, current in FSA. We're pleased to see you here today, and you kindly furnish me with a copy. It must belong to the 1750s, when possible, collected, expensive church-naves in Kent. He drew five under the names of the two shields, and described colouring to none of them. But he did attempt to provide family names, which makes it possible to determine what colours he might have seen, and what could definitely not have been there. I believe that he did not ascribe colouring part because he discussed the accuracy of restorations which he even had taken place in the previous century. Soon afterwards, of course, there had been, in the days of that condition, a decision was taken to whitewash the walls. Despite this, Thomas Willamond was still able to discern considerable traces of colour in the 1820s. His surabic notices of Canterbury Cathedral published in 1827 was denounced by the contemporary Kentish historian and heraldist, the Reverend Thomas Streetfield, FSA, who said, "'Is that woman's knowledge will not justify his confident appropriation of tinctures which divest his work of all authority?" One of the things that Streetfield took particular exception to were these arms of prowl, and this is as they appear today. Three antiquarian sources all record that they have fishes in their mouths. Now, this is what Willamond recorded in his book, but clearly this wasn't present. Now, what Willamond failed to explain was how he arrived at his descriptions of shields. He completely omitted to mention that he was using the antiquarian sources in order to do a kind of reconstruction. This has caused real problems, or even more problems than Phil Potters caused. The problem was that he incorporated contradictory observations applying many of them to the long shields in the long bays. It took him many years to understand exactly what he'd done and how one might say he used it as a source. In the end, I realised that only observations which were uniquely his might have any value. Even then, he had a tendency to describe colours because he believed he had identified the family in question. This is a really good example because he decided that these were the arms of chambering. This cannot possibly have been the case because the chamberings were descended from the chamberings of Scotland. In the 16th century, they decided they were actually descended from the chamberings of Normandy. At that point, they adopted these arms which were not in use at the time when the forest was constructed. The only possibility is that these are the arms of Darcy of Durham who wore similar arms, but in completely different colours. Even when werements arms were uniquely recorded, there was a possibility that they might have been onto a false restoration. So, one of the important realisations was in extremist, it was okay to ignore where the arms were. Now, happily there are many associations and groupings of arms in the cloister which provide an additional tool for identification. One not used by previous scholars, it's been possible to reject some of the recorded colours with high confidence. By 1914, all original traces of colour were gone, but according to Ralph Griffin, they were scraped away in the restoration which took place in 1834. This brings us to the 1930s and 40s when the bold decision was taken to re-payment. The restorers among them commanded a messenger who produced a convenient picture of the 1947 to document the completion of the project. Essentially, he got to the best guess approach to assigning colours to many of the arms. As a consequence, 95 families had been added to the project and had never liked to be there at all, which is more than a quarter of the total. Now, to be fair, Ralph Griffin defended Willamont against the regular street fuel and what messenger did was he unqrissically accepted a lot of Willamont's false attributions without questioning whether they could be correct or not. This is one of them and a very small amount of research revealed that this marriage could not have taken place. But actually finding out which family it was was a much longer job and this required many weeks of work to actually not just find a family that it might have been to make sure that no other potential families could have had such a marriage. So, I can well see why in the 1930s there was a great reluctance to take on this kind of thing to prevent the responsibility of getting it right if the people ever decided to restore the restoration and others out of their minds. Perhaps things should be left forever as they are. It will never be possible to completely discern about the exact tuition or composition as I believe that mine comes in wisdom for approximately two years. I will leave you with just a few of the many previously unknown answers which I hazarded and I didn't mention. First, the arms which I believe are those of Tom's children. Practically, these arms are not only present in the cloister but they are also at the top of the steps leading down to the martydom within the cathedral along with three other shields. One of these shields is the arms of the Priory, another the arms of the Leeds Priory and the fourth are the arms of John the Shelter which he was made in the Canterbury 1489. Now, the arms of Leeds Priory offer an important clue here because children from whence Tom's children came belonged to Leeds Priory. The presence of their arms in such places is otherwise largely inexplicable. The second clue comes from these things here which have been interpreted as that is M. But I think it can also stand for mites and the prize of the Canterbury were mites prize with papal permission. The colours are completely speculative but it seems sensible to improve the benefit in colour black. Secondly, the arms which I believe are those of the prominent Canterbury family are stable gains. Now, why else would someone adopt horse harness on their arms? There's no family of horse harness or hains as you might also call it. I've seen plenty of westerns and the thing that you have outside the stable most commonly is a horse harness. But the Statedate family took its name from the Archbishop's liberty beside the priory which once housed the stables of the diocese. But the people that are here is in this version of the arms. We have those three group letters and I added a chi for Jesus Christ Canterbury. The priory of the Christ Church was referred to as the priory of Jesus Christ of Canterbury. So hence I suspect. Finally, this particular shield, these have been described as merchant marks. But really, they're pretty obviously mason's marks. We have the mason's square here. In fact, three mason's a day might be quite pleased with arms such as these. But we also have a church very clearly that. A cathedral flying around there. And these would seem to be the perfect arms that have been adopted by the cathedral architect Stephen Lones, who replaced him, eagerly, as the cathedral architect in Fortunehamshire, and who never saw the building of the cloister. Now, on my 800-page account of the cloister, which is illustrated, recounts the diverse kinds of retails that put together make up the last tale of the cloister itself. I hope you will come to agree with me that this monument has much more to offer than the glory of its design and execution. Against all expectation, it can offer some unusual insights into English society in the nearer of civil war. Thank you.