June 19th marks the anniversary of the death of Piers Gaveston. Was it an execution or murder? In my opinion it was a murder dressed up as execution. Having surrendered at Scarborough Castle in May, Piers was put into the custody of the Earl of Pembroke, who swore on his honour to protect Piers. But for Guy, Earl of Warwick, and Edward II's cousin Thomas of Lancaster, only the death of Piers would suffice. We don't know whose idea it was - whether Warwick acted alone and then alerted Lancaster, or whether they plotted it together, but Piers was snatched from Pembroke's custody and taken to Warwick Castle. Warwick did everything he could to humiliate Piers on the way, making him walk with his hands tied, and then put him on a mule the rest of the way. He was stripped of his Earl's belt, and jeered by the crowds. Once at Warwick he was thrown into a dungeon. He was given a hasty trial - if you could call it that - and Piers was forbidden to speak. There could only be one verdict, as Lancaster swore there could be no peace in England while Piers lived. Warwick must have relished telling Piers the outcome. According to one chronicle, he sent a sharp-tongued message to Piers, telling him to look to his soul, because this was the last day he would see on earth. (Piers replied) 'Oh! Where are the presents that brought me so many intimate friends, and with which I had thought to have sufficient power? Where are my friends, in whom was my trust, the protection of my body, and the whole hope of my safety.......They has promised to stand by me in war, to suffer imprisonment, and not to shun death. Indeed my pride, the arrogance that one single promise of theirs is nourished, the king's favour and the king's court, have brought me to this sorry plight. I have no help, every remedy is vain, let the will of the earls be done'.
Hmmm, can't quite imagine Piers saying that. He knew his downfall was due to the jealousy of the likes of Warwick and Lancaster, and they were hastening his death before Edward II could try and either rescue Piers or make a yet another deal to keep Piers safe. Edward himself lamented that he had warned Piers not to fall into Warwick's hands, but he could hardly have avoided it.
Monument to Piers Gaveston at Blacklow Hill, Leek Wootton
2 comments:
Piers's death is Edward's fault. It was his thoughtless and short-sighted actions that led to the tragedy. I am sure that when returning for the third time, Piers was going to take his family and leave again. I'm sure he understood that there would be no good ending. But Edward didn't. And I still can't catch how those 9 days while Gaveston was at Warrick's hands, Edward did not find out about this and did nothing. Because I'm sure Piers was waiting for help. All these days he hoped that the king would help him, but it never happened. Very, very sad...
It’s easy to judge what happened in hindsight. I think Edward and Piers loved each other, whether it was a love affair or brotherhood, we just don’t know. Piers certainly returned for the birth of his child. He may even have never left the country, and just stayed hidden. Neither Edward or Piers could have imagined how things would play out. When Piers surrendered to Pembroke, it was on very favourable terms. He could not have foreseen he would be kidnapped by Warwick. Edward desperately appealed for help and support, but Warwick and Lancaster acted in haste. It’s Piers brother -in-law Gloucester who shocked me, refusing to lift a finger to help. Possibly Edward and Piers thought Warwick would never carry out what he threatened. After all, he didn’t have the courage to carry out the sentence - didn’t even want it done on his land, and handed Piers over to Lancaster, Edward’s cousin. Warwick hid in his castle, and even Lancaster wouldn’t watch. A cowardly and despicable act from both of them. And yes, I agree - Piers must have been waiting for help.
Post a Comment