Letter: Medieval monk in the wrong order
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The injured medieval monk whose skeleton was recently found in York ('Bones of medieval monk reveal injury like Gascoigne's', 7 September) could not have been both a Cistercian and a Gilbertine.
St Gilbert did initially adopt the Cistercian rule in the 12th century, and petitioned the Abbots assembled at Cteaux to take his new foundation under their wing. However, this request was refused because Gilbert's new community was mixed, and the Cistercians did not wish to direct women. (The roots of the current misogyny in this Church of ours are indeed long and deep])
St Gilbert then went on to found a separate community of Canons Regular, and placed both of the groups under the rule of St Augustine. Thus, the 13th-century monk whose bones were discovered in York would have been an Augustinian.
Yours faithfully,
HELEN WOOD
London, W6
8 September
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments