WORCESTER'S not called the Faithful City for nothing, " the new mayor is quoted as saying. Well spoken, your Worship, but this seems to imply you know something we don't.
A great deal of research was carried out by the late Alderman Sir Hubert Leicester into Worcester's ancient title and the best he could come up with was that "the origins are obscured in the mists of antiquity."
However, he suggests a logical explanation lies in the oath of allegiance Bishop Wulfstan was required to take to William the Conqueror. When a revolt occurred he was "faithful" to his oath by rallying the citizens of Worcester to the support of Ursa, sherriff of Evesham in suppressing it. This seems to effectively dispose of the myth about Worcester's unswerving loyalty to the Royalists in the Civil War centuries later.
It is true that in that conflict Worcester was well garrisoned by Royalist troops who would no doubt extract propaganda value from the old title but they were not Worcester people and had been mainly imported for the purpose.
From what I have read of the Civil War I have gathered that the people of Worcester were divided in their loyalties and that the civil authority co-operated with whatever side happened to be in power at the time.
JOHN HINTON,
Worcester.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article