<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">23.05.13</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>23.05.13, Boardman/Ditchburn (eds.), Kingship, Lordship and Sanctity in Medieval Britain</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Andrew Spencer</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                    <aff>Gonville &amp; Caius College, University of Cambridge</aff>
                    <address>
                        <email>ams88@cam.ac.uk</email>
                    </address>
                </contrib>
            </contrib-group>
            <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2022">
                <year>2023</year>
            </pub-date>
            <product product-type="book">
                <person-group>
                    <name>
                        <surname>Boardman, Steve, and David Ditchburn (eds.)</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                </person-group>
                <source>Kingship, Lordship and Sanctity in Medieval Britain: Essays in Honour of Alexander Grant</source>
                <series>St. Andrews Studies in Scottish History</series>
                <year iso-8601-date="2022">2022</year>
                <publisher-loc>Woodbridge, UK</publisher-loc>
                <publisher-name>Boydell &amp; Brewer</publisher-name>
                <page-range>Pp. xxxii, 301</page-range>
                <price>£70 (hardback)</price>
                <isbn>978-1-78327-716-2 (hardback)</isbn>
            </product>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright 2023 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
            </permissions>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <p>Historians of all periods and disciplines are interested in networks. The men and women
            with whom our historical subjects interacted help us to understand better their actions,
            motivations, and personalities. Historians, of course, are no less affected by these
            networks than those whom we study, as is evident from the acknowledgments section of any
            monograph. A <italic>festschrift</italic> allows us to see the influence a historian has
            had on other historians and on their area of history as well as the way in which others
            have influenced them. Alexander (“Sandy”) Grant’s <italic>festschrift</italic> is a
            window into the profound influence he has had on Scottish history over four decades. As
            a Scotsman whose professional life was spent mainly in England, however, he was able to
            remind his English colleagues not to forget the significance of Scotland on events in
            the southern kingdom, while being able to avoid the desire of some nativist Scottish
            historians to emphasise Scotland’s difference from England. As the fine and affectionate
            portrait of Grant and his work in the chapter “Views from Lancaster and Beyond”
            emphasises, Grant sought in his work to find out how the Scottish kingdom really worked.
            In doing so, he helped to establish a new orthodoxy, not unlike that which emerged in
            England, which illustrated the way in which the nobility were part of the fabric of the
            kingdom rather than constantly tearing it up through their self-interested feuding. The
            extent of his influence is evident in the range and quality of the contributions to his
                <italic>festschrift</italic>. </p>
        
        <p>The book is split into three sections, each of which mirrors an interest in Grant’s own
            work, the two largest being those on kingship and lordship, with a third looking at the
            late medieval influence of two early medieval Scottish saints, Ninian and Margaret.
            While two of the most impressive essays, Judith Green’s on Alexander I and Keith
            Stringer’s on the transnational interests of the Normanville family, focus heavily on
            the twelfth century, reflecting the range of Grant’s interest, most of the
            contributions, like Grant himself, centre on the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
            Importantly, the book maintains a strongly British, indeed a “north British” identity
            where the border between the two kingdoms poses no barrier to historical enquiry or
            understanding. In this, Boardman’s study of a Ninian who was prepared to work miracles
            for English penitents as well as Scots, and Ditchburn’s which highlights the Anglo-Saxon
            origins of Scotland’s royal saint, chime well with their approach as editors and this
            leads to a book which will be of profound interest to historians of both kingdoms. </p>
        
        <p>While a few of the essays are a little functional and incremental in their contribution
            to scholarship, several seem genuinely to move the historical debate into new areas.
            Michael Brown’s essay, which takes as its focus the attack by the men of Perth on the
            Oliphants’ tower house at Dupplin in the early 1450s, is an important effort to
            understand the role of burghs in Scottish politics in the fifteenth century, an area
            largely unexplored with the exception of Aberdeen, and adds a new dimension to our
            understanding of the period. Judith Green attempts to fill the lacuna in the historical
            imagination between the time of the saintly Margaret at the end of the eleventh century
            and the emergence of David I in the 1120s by looking at the reign of Alexander I
            (1107-1124). Early Scottish history is notoriously shadowy but what emerges is a
            portrait of a king who, though lacking legitimate children of his own, focused on the
            promotion of his dynasty and of his kingdom. Alexander was aware of the role of the
            Norman dynasty to his south in securing his throne, emphasised in his own marriage to
            one of Henry I’s illegitimate daughters and the integration of his brother David into
            the Anglo-Norman polity, but did not seek to promote Normans in his own realm and sought
            to distance the Scottish church from claims on overlordship from York or Canterbury.
            Keith Stringer’s essay, on the other hand, illustrates the extent to which by the late
            twelfth century one family was embedded in Scotland, England and Normandy. The
            Normanvilles were not unknown to English or Scottish historians before but, through a
            classical piece of empirical research into previously unpublished and largely
            uncatalogued material in Rouen, Stringer tells their story in a new way. Their
            “remarkable ability to transcend state-defined notions of allegiance, loyalty and
            identity” (102) has important implications for our understanding of both the nature of
            transnational landholding at the gentry level and of how a family might seek
            successfully to maintain those links longer than we might imagine after the sundering
            points of 1204 and 1296. </p>
        
        <p>In his chapter, Alastair Macdonald tackles the reputation of Henry V, the English king
            who, briefly, reunited England and Normandy. Macdonald provocatively titles his essay on
            Henry V and the Scots a “study in failure” but his argument is carefully and
            convincingly made. Scotland is largely absent from the historiography of Henry’s
            diplomacy but when it does appear, the king is generally praised for keeping the
            northern border quiet. Macdonald takes the king to task for squandering a “uniquely
            favourable set of circumstances for any English king” (53) on his succession in 1413.
            With both the king of Scots and the heir of the governor of the realm in custody, Henry
            “faced a cowed and quiescent northern neighbour...with no interest in driving aggressive
            foreign policies” (54) but overplayed his hand in pressing English assertions of
            sovereignty. This, combined with Henry’s determination to stake all on his French
            claims, led Albany to fear that Scottish independence would not long survive an English
            victory in France. Border war erupted in 1415 and again in 1417 before Scottish
            contingents began to arrive in France itself from 1418 onwards. It could be argued that
            any English king when placed in such an advantageous position as Henry was in 1413 would
            seek to press home that advantage (as, say, Henry II, Edward I and Edward III had done)
            and that English success in France was likely to provoke a Scottish reaction. Moreover,
            the role of the Scots in France is, of course, well known as is the psychological effect
            on both sides of the Scottish defeat of the duke of Clarence at Baugé in 1421. By
            providing the earlier context, especially the outbreak of hostilities in 1415, however,
            Macdonald succeeds in his aim in demonstrating that Henry himself was primarily
            responsible for the transposition of Anglo-Scottish hostilities to the fields and town
            of France to the detriment of his own efforts there.</p>
        
        <p>These essays, and others, offer the reader a sense that Grant’s legacy will continue in
            the exploration of new areas of research and that English and Scottish historiography
            will remain in productive and illuminating conversation with each other.</p>
    </body>
</article>
