Britain’s military history and that of its money are intertwined. Coins equipped, clothed and fed armies and, behind enemy lines, hard currency bought escape from hostile situations. In victory, coins were struck from the spoils of war. In times of crisis, from whatever sources of precious metal that were available. Buried in hoards for safekeeping or covertly shipped overseas in case of invasion, coins were more than just currency; they were a means to spread propaganda, and a powerful ally in the battle for hearts and minds.
In regions beset by war, coin production becomes challenging. Supplies of bullion can dry up, necessitating the use of alternative materials. At the same time, demand for currency can increase dramatically, leaving state mints unable to cope.
New mints must be established or existing facilities moved to follow the course of an itinerant monarch or advancing army. Stability and routine are replaced by improvisation and the sanctity of processes and standards give way to the art of the possible.
Usually, governments keep a tight control over their monopoly to produce currency, and neither the authority to mint or the profits are ever given up easily. But war changes the rules of the game and the weakening of state control can allow a usurper or regional power to assume responsibility for making money. From the Roman invasion to the twenty-first century, this has been evident throughout British history.
Stephen and Matilda
During King Stephen’s reign (1135–54), England was blighted by civil war. The country was divided between those areas loyal to the king and those supporting his opponents who had pledged allegiance to his cousin Empress Matilda, mostly in the west of England and Wales.
In twelfth-century England there was a well-established network of regional mints overseen from the centre. During this time of unrest, coins were issued in the name of Matilda, as well as under the authority of several of her supporters.
This fragmentation in monetary control was reflected in the quality of the coins emanating from regional mints, which were often poorly struck or underweight, and the production of pieces from defaced dies of King Stephen’s official coinage spoke out as an act of defiance. A national coinage system was restored after the settlement of the civil war in 1153, but the episode demonstrates how keenly the right to mint is seized when opportunity arises.
English Civil War
The English Civil War (1642–51) fractured the system once again. Fearing for the safety of his family and retinue as tension with parliament ratcheted, Charles I left London on 10 January 1642. The Royal Mint was housed within the Tower of London and remained under parliamentary control along with the south coast ports. Denied access to the mint and supplies of imported gold, forces loyal to Charles I established their own means of production, striking oversized silver pound coins of equivalent value to their gold counterparts.
The Royalists had a head start as there was already a mint in Aberystwyth prior to the civil war. In September 1642, its equipment was transferred to Shrewsbury, where a mint was established in connection with the recruitment of soldiers for the king’s army.
Royalist mints were subsequently set up in Oxford, Bristol, Truro, Exeter, York and Chester. Besieged towns contributed silver plate which was turned into coins using hand striking techniques, similar to those at the Tower. Many were poorly produced but as a series their quality holds up given their temporary nature.
Starting in Sydney in 1855, branch mints around the world struck Sovereigns in countries where gold was mined. Production would carry on until 1932, when the Pretoria mint struck the last of these coins. Unlike Canada, South Africa and Australia, India did not experience a gold rush of its own. But, because of naval blockades during the First World War, gold bound for London from South Africa was diverted to the region.
Consequently, during 1918 the branch mint in Bombay struck its own Sovereigns. The distinctive ‘I’ mint mark iden