The Regula S. Benedicti charged Benedictine monasteries with a duty of care and hospitality and, as the previous chapters have established, most cure-seekers travelled to the place of their healing. However, the Regula S. Benedicti also impressed the need for a level of separation and the cloistering of the brothers. These concerns were later re-emphasised in the canons of the First Lateran Council and later medieval visitation records, both stressing the need for monastic seclusion. Nevertheless, cure-seekers deliberately sought out the locations in which the saints (or rather their relics) resided and would have expected a hospitable welcome from their hosts. Being welcoming to, and separated from, the laity, monasteries had to balance two juxtaposing duties to fulfil their spiritual and charitable responsibilities. Yet miracle accounts show little concern over the presence of cure-seekers – instead presenting the shrines as being open to all people and at all times – with limited indication of the supervision of, or the boundaries between, sufferers, saints and the monastic community.

We arrive in this final chapter then, along with the cure-seekers, at the shrines of the saints. Of course, it must be understood that the experiences of the churchmen who were miraculously cured, especially those of the cult-centre community, would have differed from those of the lay cure-seekers. But what would the majority of cure-seekers have expected on arrival at the shrines? To address this, the question of where in the monastery cure-seekers sought their cure must be asked. We must also consider the regulation and reception of lay visitors, and the matter of whether cure-seekers were seen to be ‘guests’ of the monastery. It must be recognised that Benedictine monasteries like our seven cult centres were, to an extent, independent institutions. Consequently, the ways that monasteries approached the issue of lay presence might well differ. Those that were established, larger and located in urban centres such as Canterbury, Ely and Winchester, which were visited by numerous travellers, would have been more practised in handling lay visitors than smaller, rural monasteries. Conversely, establishments such as Burton, with a principally local focus, could have developed stronger relations with the local laity. Reading had a special duty of hospitality written into its foundation charter, while Norwich permitted lay access to William’s tomb in the monks’ cemetery and chapter house (prior to the translation to the cathedral itself).