Piers Gaveston's first exile came during the reign of Edward Ist. Initially the King was delighted with Piers being in his son's service, thinking perhaps that the chivalrous and graceful young man would be an excellent role model for his son - a chronicle of the time says Piers was chosen was his 'fine manners...he was courteous'. Piers entered the household of Prince Edward late 1300. Piers began to rise in Prince Edward's household, seemingly with the blessing of the King, who had ultimate control. Fast forward to 1307, and we have a very different scenario. It was then that the King demanded Piers be exiled, and Piers and the Prince were made to swear an oath to uphold this command.
Piers had been removed from the Prince's household in 1305, along with Gilbert de Clare, but this was carried out to punish the Prince, rather than anything Piers or Gilbert had done, for both were allowed to return. If Piers had angered King Edward, he surely would not have allowed him to return. Yet return he did, and continued his rise. The only chronicle to go into detail about Piers' first exile is by Walter of Gainsborough. He tells the highly dramatic story of Prince Edward asking his father to give Piers the county of Ponthieu. Suspecting his father might not find the idea palatable, he asked treasurer Walter Langton to ask for him! It seems Prince Edward had done all he could for Piers, and now wanted his father to give him his own land. Not surprisingly, King Edward was furious, and demanded the prince appear before him and explain himself. The prince didn't stand a chance, and we have the image of the King grabbing his son by the hair and calling him 'a whoreson .....you should never enjoy your inheritance ' if he wanted to give away lands he'd never earned. It's a scene played out in many fictional accounts. If true, it shows the terrible rage of Edward 1st - calling his son 'a whoreson' suggests he lost all control of himself - and the prince's infatuation with Piers. There's no indication Piers asked the Prince for Ponthieu. He may have had no idea of Prince Edward's plan - for surely he would have known of the King's reaction? Certainly Piers bore the brunt of the incident and was exiled. However, he was exiled on seemingly good terms.
To begin with, Piers was not instantly banished, but was given 2 months to prepare himself. This gave him time to prepare his household to take them with him and put his affairs in order. Neither was Piers banished indefinitely. Piers 'shall remain there without returning until he shall be recalled by the King and his permission '. So the banishment was not permanent. Piers was even to receive 100 marks per annum as long as he remained overseas. Considering Edward 1st had violently assaulted his son and cursed him, Piers came off well in the incident. There's no evidence that the King took out his violent temper on Piers. Both Piers and Prince Edward were made to swear a sacred oath they would obey the King's orders. Was Edward 1st actually far more concerned with his son's infatuation with Piers, and seeking to put an end to it? And by making Piers exile quite comfortable, was his rage directed at Prince Edward, and that in fact, he did not hold Piers responsible? Did the King hope the infatuation would burn itself out, and in a few years Piers could return and the past forgotten?
We will never know if the violent scene between father and son is true but there must have been an incident - or a series of incidents - that caused the King to fear the direction the Prince and Piers' relationship was heading, whether it was sexual, or whether Piers would become too influential on his son and become the dreaded 'over-mighty' subject. However, it seems like the King blamed his son, not Piers.
Source: 'Piers Gaveston: politics and patronage in the reign of Edward II' by J.S. Hamilton
2 days ago
