History HubΒ permalink
Our Lady of Walsingham
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 20th August 2011
When I was in Norfolk this week, I went to visit the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, which is a millenium-old tradition....
Basically, the story is this: Saxon noblewoman Richeldis de Faverches sees vision of Virgin Mary in 1061, and erects shrine in Norfolk village of Walsingham to worship the mother of Jesus Christ, and Walsingham then becomes a shrine visited by many Catholics and Anglicans around the world. But I have to raise a question of historical accuracy. The name Richeldis de Faverches is not a Saxon name - it's clearly Norman in origin. I can't find any historical verification of her story. All I found is this:
"Although we cannot be certain that this story represents all the details of historical fact, we do know that in passing on his guardianship of the Holy House, Geoffrey de Faverches left instructions for the building of a Priory in Walsingham. The Priory passed into the care of Augustinian Canons somewhere between 1146 and 1174."
It leads me to conclude that Geoffrey was a Norman lord who concocted this story about his mother, and rather disingenuously claimed she was a Saxon noble-woman when she clearly wasn't....
Am I being harsh? Or is my assessment a fair one? -
Message 2
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 20th August 2011
Sorry I know nothing of the legend Shivfan, but it could be possible that this women was Saxon. De Faverches would have been her married name and not her maiden name plus the first name, Richeldis, may have been a Normanisation of a more traditional Saxon fore name.
-
Message 3
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 20th August 2011
That might be a more accurate explanation, islanddawn....
In which case, it's probably not accurate to call her a Saxon noble-woman, if she was married to a Norman, and had her name Norman-ised....
Because, for all intents and purposes, she's a Norman noblewoman, then.
Edith was the niece of Edgar Atheling, and married Henry I, and then changed his name to Matilda, but I don't think we can call her a Saxon queen. For all intents and purposes, she was a Norman queen....
However, by dint of his marriage, Henry I apparently became far more acceptable to the Anglo-Saxon populace. So, maybe this claim that Richeldis was a Saxon noble-woman was done with the same goal in mind.
After all, the first historical reference made about this shrine seems to have come in Geoffrey's will, making provision for a priory, and seems to have been done after he'd seen the benefits Henry I reaped from marrying a 'Saxon' queen.... -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
If Geoffrey de Faverches owned the land on which the later shrine and priory was constructed then it somehow escaped the attention of the Domesday Book compilers, who would have been in the area 25 years after the supposed apparition and presumably bang in the middle of his tenure. Instead the Walsingham estate is divided in ownership between one Reynald FitzIvo and another man identified only as Humphrey who was running lands which had been awarded to Peter de Valognes after confiscation from Ralph de Guader.
The first mention of the de Faverches lady and her Mary-spotting seems to be in a much later ballad, by which time the priory was in full pilgrim-fleecing activity under Augustinian management. In fact this reference to the Augustinians might well be the most important clue as to what really happened, given the fact that they seem to have had Norfolk quite rapidly sewn up with regard to religious revenues thanks to the patronage of some important nobles from the conquest on, and also had soon managed to acquire royal patronage, protection and some considerable land grants after a failed attempt by Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, to take over their rackets as well as their lands during Stephen's reign (a mere decade after the alleged will of Geoffrey de Faverches).
The original apparition, if indeed it ever happened, might well have been made by a "Saxon" woman. But her identity, and that of her supposed son whose generous bequest kick-started the Augustinian's earner, are both lost to history - despite the many assertions of the story as fact which surround this site. Especially from those who express a devotion to the BVM and who even today would like to "resurrect" the shrine's earning potential. But then what's new about that? -
Message 5
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
Are you familiar with this shrine, Carfin Grotto in Lanarkshire.
The pilgrimage business is clearly still a profitable one to get into.
Words fail me. -
Message 6
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
Mmm, monstrance or monstrosity?
Another, and possibly the most famous, would be Lourdes in France. Still raking it in after all this time, 45,000 pilgrims passed through just for the 150th anniversary service in 2008. -
Message 7
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
A few years ago I was in Fatima in Portugal, possible the greatest concentration of sheer ugliness I have ever seen; architecture, souvenirs, everything. The whole place felt utterly contrived and totally commercial.
The dozens of ugly stalls were full of creepy candles
which were almost immediately thrown into a huge fire pit.
Seeing the pilgrims making their way across the vast concourse on their knees was really disturbing.
I've rarely been so happy to leave anywhere. -
Message 8
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
The candle or votive offering thing goes back to paganism, but isn't now exclusive to Catholicism. Close to where I live there is a 13thC Orthodox church/shrine that is full of votive offerings in all shapes and sizes imaginable. Some of the candles etc date back hundreds of years, and, as you say, are decidedly creepy.
Sorry Shivfan, we've veered a tad off your topic! -
Message 9
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
Religion apart, Walsingham is a wonderful place for lovers of history: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Henry VI, Henry VII and Henry VIII all visited there. Both Catherine of Aragon and, ironically, Anne Boleyn, prayed at the shrine. The desperate supplications of both queens - so it would seem - went unanswered.
Erasmus went there too in 1512 (and later I think too in 1524) and the excesses of Marian piety he found both at Walsingham and at Canterbury are pilloried in his Colloquy - A Pilgrimage for Religion's Sake.
Henry VIII destroyed it all in 1538. Cromwell's agents were particularly disgusted at what they found at Walsingham: "...much superstition in feigned relics and miracles." The Priory and its lands were sold off and the famous statue of Our Lady of Walsingham was brought to London and burnt along with other "idols".
And yet... the shrine and its gentle Queen of Heaven were badly missed: literature of the later 16th century is full of wistful references to the place. -
Message 10
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2011
And veering even more off the topic, for some reason we came across a mention of Our Lady of Rugby Chapel last night and I see this here:
No more time.
Caro. -
Message 11
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 24th August 2011
If Geoffrey de Faverches owned the land on which the later shrine and priory was constructed then it somehow escaped the attention of the Domesday Book compilers, who would have been in the area 25 years after the supposed apparition and presumably bang in the middle of his tenure. Instead the Walsingham estate is divided in ownership between one Reynald FitzIvo and another man identified only as Humphrey who was running lands which had been awarded to Peter de Valognes after confiscation from Ralph de Guader.
The first mention of the de Faverches lady and her Mary-spotting seems to be in a much later ballad, by which time the priory was in full pilgrim-fleecing activity under Augustinian management. In fact this reference to the Augustinians might well be the most important clue as to what really happened, given the fact that they seem to have had Norfolk quite rapidly sewn up with regard to religious revenues thanks to the patronage of some important nobles from the conquest on, and also had soon managed to acquire royal patronage, protection and some considerable land grants after a failed attempt by Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, to take over their rackets as well as their lands during Stephen's reign (a mere decade after the alleged will of Geoffrey de Faverches).
The original apparition, if indeed it ever happened, might well have been made by a "Saxon" woman. But her identity, and that of her supposed son whose generous bequest kick-started the Augustinian's earner, are both lost to history - despite the many assertions of the story as fact which surround this site. Especially from those who express a devotion to the BVM and who even today would like to "resurrect" the shrine's earning potential. But then what's new about that?Β Thanks, Nordmann, I think your post has fully answered all the questions I had swirling in my head about the apparent contradictions in this story, and, more importantly, why they were there.... -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 24th August 2011
In Roman times Walsingham possessed a temple which archaeological research suggests might well have been a place of pilgrimage. Interestingly the temple, based on selected finds of devotional figurines found in the district north of Hindringham Road, may in fact have been dedicated to Minerva (the virgin goddess and mediatrix).
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.