Piers Gaveston: The Maligned.......

Quite a few years ago, there appeared a support group on various history blogs. The support group was for those much maligned in historical novels. At the time, Edward II and Piers Gaveston had been amongst the most vilified. Edward was always weak and enthralled by Piers Gaveston. Ok, the latter part might be true, but Edward was far from physically weak and was seen as well built and handsome by his contemporaries. And it seemed incredulous that he would spurn his beautiful, French wife for Piers. Even though she was only 12! That bit was always left out. Piers was always foppish and vile to Isabella. His wife, Margaret de Clare, often faced 'the ordeal' of having to marry Piers. His success in tournaments, and the fact one chronicler described him as looking like the God Mars, was always forgotten, as was the fact that there is no evidence Margaret was unhappy in her marriage, followed him into exile in Ireland and Piers returned home for the birth of their child Joan. Thankfully, there has been a change in this attitude - recent works like 'The Spell Binders' by Aleardo Zanghellini have been a welcome, refreshing change. The work of historian Kathryn Warner and her Edward II blog have also changed attitudes to Edward. However, it seems that whilst Edward and Piers are undergoing a change of attitude, there's a new set of historical figures under siege.

Kathryn's recent post deals with an irritating, and IMO, frankly insulting accusations against the latest crop of maligned figures - you can read it - here

Of particular interest to me is the continued attacks on Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and George Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV and Richard III. To be fair, Clarence doesn't have a great reputation anyway. I was delighted to read Thomas Penn's 'The Brothers York' and Michael Hicks recent book on Richard III, both of which have a far more sympathetic attitude to George - and try to understand why he behaved the way he did. Looking at the original sources, the one area where Clarence gets praise is in his marriage to the Earl of Warwick's daughter Isabel. Yet it's this relationship that comes under attack with George portrayed as an unsympathetic and indifferent husband. This is usually to contrast with so-called 'childhood sweethearts' Anne Neville and Richard III.

My number one concern though is the character of Margaret Beaufort being under constant attack. Most absurd is that she was consumed by making her son king from almost as soon as he was born and being responsible for the murder of the so-called Princes in the Tower. This does make a change from being 'the mother-in-law from hell' as she has been previously labelled. Of course these recent accusations have taken root due to a certain novelist, but unfortunately, is now being taken as fact as I've seen online and had people tell me it's all true - even when I visited Margaret's refuge when she was pregnant at 13, Pembroke Castle, where she gave birth to Henry VII. Henry Tudor was a total outsider with his claim to the throne. Probably most lower class people had never heard of him until he met Richard III at Bosworth. How on earth could Margaret plot her son's accession to the throne when there were so many other candidates? Henry VI had a son, Edward of Westminster, and the Yorks were blessed with an array of candidates - Edward IV, his 2 sons, George and his son, Richard and his son, plus their sisters offspring. Can anyone seriously think Margaret would have tremendous hindsight and plot to bring her son to the throne? Edward IV was confident his brother Richard would make an excellent Protector for his son, and clearly had no doubts about their legitimacy being questioned - after all, no one had questioned it whilst he was alive, even when his secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was announced. The question only arose when it became convenient for Richard III to do do so.

The question of the sons of Edward IV's legitimacy seems to be the main reason for exonerating Richard of ordering their deaths. So therefore, it must be somebody else - and that it should be Margaret is frankly a joke. Yes, Margaret did plot with Elizabeth Woodville to marry her son to make him an alternative king to Richard III. But I sincerely believe that's how far her involvement went. By then, Elizabeth and Margaret must have accepted the Princes were dead. There had been an attempt to free the boys shortly after Richard took the throne - so there were people who questioned them being labelled illegitimate, and they were a threat to Richard. The princes were in the custody of Richard - he was responsible for their care and safety, and they were removed deeper into the Tower and were never seen again. Would Richard be sloppy enough not to have those boys well guarded, in case another attempt was made to free them? Or they won the sympathy of certain guards in the Tower? I don't want to turn this post into yet another discussion on who killed the princes, because historians know that if any of the candidates were put on trial today, there is not enough evidence to convict any of them. We can only speculate. I personally do think Richard had them murdered - they were in his custody and they were a threat to them, and when he faced any challenges to his throne, he only had to produce the boys to show they were still alive. That doesn't mean that I think of him as the monster that Shakespeare created. Henry Tudor was jittery in his treatment of pretenders - if his mother knew anything about the princes, she would surely have told him and he would have nothing to worry about.

Margaret was known to be pious, and yet even this has been used to attack her, making her into some kind of religious maniac. No doubt, Margaret's faith sustained her through a troubles early life. Pregnant at 13, and a widow, she was vulnerable. After giving birth, when some wondered if she'd survive the ordeal, she set about ensuring her safety and her son's. She arranged another marriage, and trusted her son with Jasper Tudor. She spent perilous years at the courts of Edward IV and Richard III. Her main concern was to ensure she married for protection and for her son to have his rightful title - Earl of Richmond. Not surprisingly, she never had any more children and took a vow of chastity whilst still married to her last husband.

Margaret was a pious, clever woman, promoting her faith, being a devoted mother to her son and I also think she was an incredibly strong woman living in perilous times. Yet her contemporaries did not attack her in the same way they did Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville, which is typical of the attacks on women at that time. It's sad to think that because of a creative novelist, she suffers many attacks on her character.

I'll end this post in a light-hearted way. If you check out the Royal History Geeks Facebook page, you will see some very amusing tongue-in-cheek jokes about Margaret's reputation. It's well worth a look and a laugh. Here's a taster -

RoyalHistoryGeeks