In 1312, Piers Gaveston had returned from his third exile,
probably for the birth of his daughter Joan by his wife Margaret. He certainly returned with the full
permission, if not an out and out demand from Edward II. His return was surely planned, and Edward
immediately restored his lands and titles, including Earl of Cornwall. Both Edward and Piers must have realised the
response of the barons, who were infuriated.
Edward and Piers remained in the North, awaiting the actions of the
nobles, and even trying to bargain with the Scots to protect Piers.
Against this background, writer Paul Doherty sets the third
of his novels involving the character of Mathilde in the novel ‘The Darkening
Glass.’ Doherty has written several
novels and works of non-fiction, most notably, ‘Isabella and the Strange Death
of Edward II’. In his author’s note,
Doherty claims to have based his novel on facts, particularly from the
chronicle Vita Edwardi Secundi. These
are his exact words –
‘ Gaveston’s fall is
accurately described. Something hideous
occurred at Scarborough that forced him to surrender……Gaveston was seized and
executed by Warwick and his allies, as described by Mathilde. Edward’s re-action to his favourite’s death
was strangely muted. He called Gaveston
a fool, and only much later did he kindle his angry hatred against the
earls……Isabella’s separation from her husband during the crisis was also very
curious, bearing in mind she was pregnant’.
‘The Darkening Glass’ in a nutshell, details the fall and
death of Piers Gaveston. One thing it
is vital to know of the author is that he adores Queen Isabella, and is at a
loss as to how Edward cannot be madly in love with her – even when she was
12. Mathilde is clearly in love with
her. We are frequently told how
beautiful Isabella is, with plenty of physical descriptions of her beauty. And of course, how clever she is – for the
fall of Piers is down to her! As the
story unfolds, many of Gaveston’s personal guard fall to their death, and a
cryptic note is found upon the bodies –
‘Aquilae Petri, fly not so bold, for Gaveston your master
has been both bought and sold’.
The note is obviously a play on the message sent to the Duke
of Norfolk for his support for Richard III.
‘Jockey of Norfolk be not so bold, for Dickon they master is bought and
sold’. Hardly original.
Throughout the pursuit of the King and Piers, there are
mentions of doom, and fate taking its course.
Eventually, Edward persuades Piers to withdraw to Scarborough Castle and
prepare for a siege, whilst the King would head to York to rally support. During this time, there’s the incident where
Queen Isabella is left at Tynemouth.
Murders take place within Scarborough Castle, the well is poisoned –
someone is clearly determined to destroy Piers from within, following
Isabella’s orders. Eventually, Piers
accepts his fate and surrenders.
What I find particularly difficult to understand here is
that Edward has abandoned Piers to his fate, persuaded by Isabella! Doherty claims that Edward is heartily sick
of Piers, having known no peace for 4 years, and now that his young Queen is
pregnant, his realises where his priorities lie. So Doherty wants us to believe that Edward
let Piers set off for Scarborough, and that his fate was in his own hands – and
what happened to him was his own fault.
Hence his calling Piers ‘a fool’ on hearing of his murder. It seems Piers was planning a deal with the
Scots to kidnap the Queen and harm her and her unborn child, and when Isabella
told Edward, he realised how jealous Piers was of the Queen. Isabella also threatened to humiliate Edward
by fleeing to France and wearing widow’s weeds until he banished Piers. (This is exactly what Isabella does in her
dispute with Edward and Hugh Despencer many years later). As a result, Edward is only too glad to
abandon Piers and justify his actions by saying Piers brought it all on
himself.
As a work of fiction, it’s barely believable. But for Doherty to use his position as a
‘historian’ to try to prove that Edward abandoned Piers because of his newfound
love for his pregnant wife is unforgivable.
He’s trying to persuade the reader that this is fact, and it is clearly
not. Gaveston’s fall is not ‘accurately
described’. The sequence of events is there;
- although Isabella’s presence is sometimes confused with a much later incident
at Tynemouth, but the interpretation is not.
‘Something hideous occurred that forced him to surrender’. No, it didn’t. According to the Vita, which Doherty says is
his main source; it was a lack of provisions –perfectly believable. Plus, Piers surrendered on the most generous
of terms. If no solution was to be
reached with the barons, he was to return to Scarborough castle in August with
full provisions and continue the siege.
One chronicler thought the King had bribed the Earl of Pembroke to
ensure Piers safety, and another describes the event as a triumph for Piers
over the barons. Doherty states that as
soon as Edward and Piers parted, no word reached Piers from the King. Wrong – Edward and Piers were able to stay in
touch. Doherty also criticises the
choice of Scarborough – Mathilde is shocked Edward would tell him to hold up
there. But from my last post, why
not? It was a superb fortress – plus, it
was near Scotland, should Edward strike a deal with the Scots to shelter Piers
– which he was working for. Also, as the
castle was bordered by the sea on one side, if needed, Piers could put to sea
and flee.
The most frustrating part of the novel is Edward abandoning
Piers as he has grown tired of him and realises he is a nasty man with nasty
plans for Isabella. Erm, no. Isabella was perfectly safe from Thomas of
Lancaster and the nobles – she was in no danger. Lancaster was her relative, and she was
pregnant with an heir – great news for the kingdom. Lancaster even promised Isabella he would
rid her of Piers, but Isabella returned to her husband’s side. Why would Piers
be jealous of Isabella? He had his own
wife and child – he knew Edward’s duty, as did Edward. Plus, he’d just had all his titles and land
restored. At 16, Isabella was still very
young compared to Edward and Piers – what threat could she be?
As for Edward abandoning Piers – well, why plan his return
from his third exile? He worked
tirelessly for Piers’ return from his second exile, even getting the Pope
onside. His actions on the return of
Piers from his third exile also show that he was anxious and would go to any
lengths to protect Piers. When sending
Piers to Scarborough, he made Piers promise never to surrender the castle to
anyone except himself, and if he, Edward, should arrive as a prisoner, Piers
was not to surrender – even if the king were to be put to death. Clearly, Edward is putting Piers’ safety
above his own.
Of course I realise ‘The Darkening Glass’ is a novel,
fiction based around historical fact.
But what I object to is Doherty asserting his novel is based on absolute
fact because he is a historian, and his interpretation is correct. Compare his statement with that of Alison
Weir’s works of fiction. In ‘The Lady Elizabeth’,
Princess Elizabeth is made pregnant by Thomas Seymour, a well-known rumour, but
Weir makes it clear she does not believe this; she has just used it as the
basis of her novel. Likewise with ‘A
dangerous Inheritance’, she makes it clear there is very little information on
the character Katherine Plantagenet, and most of what she has written is
entirely fictional. So when Doherty says
‘Something hideous occurred that forced him to surrender’ – I can only assume
the something hideous was Doherty’s dreadful plot.
* Doherty also makes several other mistakes in his novel - for example stating Isabella was buried in the same Grey Friars Church as Roger Mortimer.
Sources: ‘Edward II, the Unconventional King’, by Kathryn
Warner, ‘Edward II’, by Seymour Phillips.
