I
can't believe I've never written about the burial of Piers Gaveston
before. Having written about his 'execution' and his body left by the
roadside, I've never written about what happened next.......because it's not a
simple case of Edward II receiving the body and providing a fine tomb for Piers
at Kings Langley, where they had spent many happy times. This is
indeed what happened, but not until January 1315, 3 years after his death, that
Piers was laid to rest. So why did Edward wait so long? Piers
had been excommunicated by the Pope in January 1312, and as such could not be
buried in consecrated ground. Edward was determined to get this
reversed. Also, maybe Edward wanted to bring the murderers of Piers to
justice so that he could avenge Piers and he could rest in peace. This is
mentioned in the chronicle Vita Edwardi
Piers body was left outside Warwick
Castle, allegedly left by some shoemakers who discovered it where it had been abandoned.
The Annales Londonienses says the shoemakers re-attached the head and brought
it to Warwick Castle. Guy of Warwick, who had ambushed and kidnapped
Piers, recoiled in horror and would not accept the body. Indeed, he did
not want it on his land. Was this a sign of his guilt, or the fear of
what Edward II would do? The body was then taken by the Dominican Friars,
an order favoured by Edward II, and taken to Oxford, There the body was
guarded by Thomas de London and Philip de Eyndon before being moved to
Langley. Edward had Piers wrapped in cloth of gold and was preserved by
spices. He also arranged to have prayers said for the soul of
Piers, whilst he sought the sentence of excommunication to be revoked.
This was done by Walter Reynolds, the Archbishop of Canterbury. By this
time, Edward had achieved some sort of peace with the murderers of Piers.
But it was all for show, as subsequent events would prove.
Unsurprisingly, the funeral of Piers
was lavish. Edward paid £300 of 3 clothes of gold to bury Piers in, and
also arranged to have 23 tuns of wine and food to be provided. The Earls
of Pembroke and Hereford were invited to attend, as well as the bishops of
London, Bath and Wells, Worcester and Winchester. Edward's Queen,
Isabella, also attended. Notable absentees were Guy of Warwick and Thomas
of Lancaster. After 2 and a half years, Piers was finally laid to
rest. Edward built Piers a fine tomb, which sadly no longer
exists. He continued to pay for prayers to be said for the soul of Piers
and for the upkeep of his tomb. But if Warwick and Lancaster thought this
was the end of the matter, they were very much mistaken.
Sources - J S Hamilton 'Piers
Gaveston, Politics and Patronage in the reign of Edward II'.
8 comments:
Dear Anerje, thanks a lot for the article. I wonder if Margaret de Clare ever visited the resting place of her husband.
I would like to think she did. Despite what is written in fictional accounts, it seems to me Piers and Margaret must have had some happiness in their marriage. She chose to follow him to Ireland in his second exile, and Piers returned from his third exile for the birth of their daughter.
I do believe that they had feelings for each other, maybe even loved each other and were happy together. I also think that during his third exile Piers didn’t go far away because Margaret was pregnant. And he returned to see her and their child. It could work out for them if Edward II didn’t proclaim that Gaveston returned and would stay. Maybe Piers would take his family and leave with his wife and daughter later? Who knows? Unfortunately it never happened. As I read, Margaret still bore her husband’s family name even 3 years after Piers’ death. So I think that she mourned him and I also would like to think that she visited his grave.
I’m certain they had feelings for each other. From what we know of Piers, he was handsome, with impeccable manners and was graceful. He’s described as looking like the ‘god Mars’ at Edward’s coronation. He had great success in tournaments, and Edward was certainly besotted with him, so why not Margaret? Whatever Piers and Edward’s relationship, there is no reason for Piers and Margaret to have had a strong affection, even love for each other. Both Edward and Piers showed respect for their wives and in no way humiliated them. Edward’s mistake was to restore Piers to his titles so soon. Though neither could have known that Guy of Warwick had murderous designs on Piers. Piers should have been safe in his surrender to the Earl of Pembroke.
I would love to learn more details about everyday life of Piers and Margaret, especially when they lived in Ireland, imagine what kind of person he was away from the court.
I'm sure Piers had a softer side. The chroniclers of the time did not like him, although he is credited with being handsome, graceful and with impeccable manners. Plus, he had served his time on the battlefield and tournaments and was a worthy opponent. No doubt he had a sharp tongue - which was probably reserved for those who deserved it. I'm sure he and Margaret had some 'quality time' when they lived in Ireland. Edward II had every intention of re-calling Piers from his second exile, so Margaret could have stayed at her uncle's court. The fact she went with Piers to Ireland speaks volumes about their relationship IMO.
Yes, I totally agree that the fact that Margaret followed her husband in his exile to Ireland tells a lot. And, yes, Piers had sharp tongue, but I'm also sure that he had softer side and could be loving and caring towards his wife. Margaret was very young, almost an adolescent, so I think his care meant a lot to her.
Post a Comment