William of Worcester's Chronicle of England
William of Worcester, born around 1415, and died around 1482 was secretary to John Fastolf, the renowned soldier of the Hundred Years War, during which time he collected documents, letters, and wrote a record of events. Following their return to England in 1440 William was witness to major events. Twice in his chronicle he uses the first person: 1. when writing about the murder of Thomas, 7th Baron Scales, in 1460, he writes '… and I saw him lying naked in the cemetery near the porch of the church of St. Mary Overie in Southwark …' and 2. describing King Edward IV's entry into London in 1461 he writes '… proclaimed that all the people themselves were to recognize and acknowledge Edward as king. I was present and heard this, and immediately went down with them into the city'. William’s Chronicle is rich in detail. It is the source of much information about the Wars of the Roses, including the term 'Diabolical Marriage' to describe the marriage of Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s brother John’s marriage to Katherine, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, he aged twenty, she sixty-five or more, and the story about a paper crown being placed in mockery on the severed head of Richard, 3rd Duke of York.
Available at Amazon in eBook and Paperback format.
Archaeologia Volume 2 Section XVII is in Archaeologia Volume 2.
An Account of the Monument [Kit's Coty House [Map]] commonly ascribed to Catigern. By Mr. Colebrooke. Read at the Society of Antiquaries, June 12, 1766.
In the parish of Addington, near Town Mailing, in Kent, about 500 paces to the north east of the church, in a rabbit warren, upon a little eminence, are the remains of several large Stones, placed in an oval form. The inside of the area from east to west is 50 paces, the breadth in the middle from north to south 42 paces; at the east end is a flat stone, placed somewhat like that which they call the Altar at Stone Henge: PI. vi. fig. 1. N°. 1. This stone in the longest part is nine feet, in the broadest seven feet, and near two feet thick. Behind this, a little to the north, is another flat stone, No. 2. which seems to have stood upright, but is now, by some accident thrown down. This is fifteen feet long, seven feet wide, and two feet thick. The stone N°. 3. next the altar on the north side, is seven feet high, seven feet wide, and two feet thick; the top of this hath been broken off. There are but two others which appear above the surface of the ground, (N°. 4 and 5) and these are not more than two feet high. One may easily trace the remains of seventeen of them; though from the distances between the stones, which are pretty nearly equal, there must have been rather more than twenty to complete the oval, which consisted of only one row of stones. The soil hereabout is very sandy, and the rain hath washed the sand so much over many of them, that by their distances from each other, I could only find them when I thrust my cane into the ground. Those of the stones which were fallen down have been carried away by the inhabitants, and applied to mend causeways, or make steps for stiles. The stones are of the same species with those at Stone Henge, and being placed in the same form, seem as if they were designed for the same use.
I first viewed this monument of antiquity, or temple, in 1754. Since that time the place is fo overgrown with brom, fern &c. that I could trace out very few of the stones, when again upon the spot in 1761.
About 130 paces to the north west of this is another heap of a large stones, tumbled inwards one on another. This originally consisted of six stones, (see PL vi. fig. 2.) each stone seven feet wide, two feet thick, and by measuring the longest piece with the base, from which it seems to have been broken off, it must have been 19 feet in height. The bases of these are at equal diflances, about 3 paces asunder, and in the circuit wmeasure 33 paces; so that the area must have been near 11 paces in diameter. The form is circular, not oval, and the openings are due east and west: this is the same kind of stone as the former. Fig. 3. is the largest fragment, which I measured with the base nearest it, to ascertain the original height.