Piers Gaveston

Valentine Greeting

2012-02-14T08:18:00.000-08:00

I have shamefully neglected this blog for so long! I've started 3 Piers-related posts and abandonned them all. But as today is Valentine's Day, I can always rely on The Valentine Generator http://dagblog.com/humor-satire/valentine-generator-452

So here is Edward II's valentine greeting for Piers!

To my Scrumptious Gascon Piers,
You are the jewel of my crown. I want to joust with you more than any other lance in the whole court.
The first time we thatched, I felt in my splendid fingers, and I was so overwhelmed that I could barely thatch. I knew that we would throb together for years.
Whenever you tease, it makes me swoon gracefully and spend like a parliament .
I will toast with you provocatively until the treasury empties and the country revolts.
Splendid Valentine's Day!
Love, your devoted King

Not quite the best books of 2011………

2012-01-05T11:26:00.001-08:00

I’ve been meaning to post my top ten books of 2011, but after much searching of my book cases, I have to say I don’t have a ‘best 10 books’, so what follows is a mixture of the best, adequate, interesting and ‘how did this get written’ review of books I’ve read in 2011.

1. Best book of 2011 was undoubtedly ‘Fatal Colours’ by George Goodwin. There were several books released about the battle of Towton in 2011, but Goodwin’s book gripped me. It set the scene for the so-called ‘Wars of the Roses’ origins, which is open to debate. The chapter on the possible schizophrenia of Henry VI was revealing and sympathetic. The analysis of the battle is first rate. A definite read for anyone interested in this topic.

2. Best fiction book has to be Susan Higginbotham’s ‘The Queen of Last Hopes’. As in her previous novels, once I started reading it, I couldn’t put it down. It gives a very sympathetic portrayal of a much maligned Queen, Margaret of Anjou. Her struggle to support her husband and her son is at times heart-breaking, and there is a very charismatic portrayal of Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. To say Margaret lead an eventful life is an understatement, and Susan Higginbotham covers all stages of her life. I’m amazed she lived as long as she did.

3. After all the books on Henry VIII and the other Tudors , most notably Anne Boleyn, Giles Tremlett’s ‘Catherine of Aragon’ attempts to remind us of Catherine’s life. Tremlett is undoubtedly on ‘Catherine’s side’, and examines documents in Spain dating from the time of ‘the great matter’, the divorce. Tremlett makes the claim this information has rarely been seen, and while it is interesting to read these documents, they are unsurprisingly pro-Catherine and not real ‘proof’ that she was telling the truth about her wedding night to Prince Arthur. It is from these documents that the image of the ‘sickly prince’ emerges. Tremlett also irks me by referring to Anne Boleyn’s sharp tongue, nagging ways etc. He also constantly calls her Boleyn – but never refers to Catherine as ‘Aragon’. Just lay your cards on the table and say you are pro-Catherine and anti-Anne Boleyn, and make no claim to be impartial is my advice. Pro-Catherine fans will obviously love it.

4. I am unashamedly pro-Anne Boleyn, and after the glut of books that came out in 2010, 2011 was a leaner year. I will buy any book relating to Anne Boleyn and her family. I was delighted that Paul Friedman’s Anne Boleyn, first published in 1884, was re-issued. It was once THE book to read on Anne Boleyn and I was so happy to finally have my own copy.

5. Another Anne Boleyn book was ‘Anne Boleyn in her own words etc’ edited by Elizabeth Norton. It contains written accounts of contemporaries on Anne Boleyn plus any documents pertaining to her. A worthy addition to my collection.

6. I have Robert Hutchinson’s previous books on Thomas Cromwell, the House of Treason (The Howard family) and ‘Henry VIII’s last days’. These books are interesting and I tend to dip into them every so often rather than read them from cover to cover. ‘The Young Henry VIII’ follows closely on the heels of David Starkey’s ‘Young Henry’, and both books reveal very little that I didn’t already know about Henry. One book on the young Henry VIII was quite enough, and in my opinion, no-one can better Starkey. I would never have bought it had I not seen it in the ‘bargain basement’.

7. ‘The Boleyns’ by David Loades is a definite must to find out about Anne Boleyn’s early family and what happened to them after her fall, particularly those who survived and flourished in her daughter Elizabeth’s reign.

8. While Loades dealt with the Boleyn family, Alison Weir centred on Mary Boleyn – and it must be said, there is very little to be said on Mary Boleyn. There is very little evidence that survives on Mary, certainly not enough to fill a biography, so we are left with a lot of supposition – what if? maybe, this could be…. etc. For some strange reason there is a picture of Francis 1^st’s queen, Claude on the cover – very bizarre. The title ‘Mary Boleyn, the infamous whore’ is obviously meant to grab attention. In all honesty, does Mary warrant a biography? In my opinion, no – that she was Anne’s sister and the mistress of Henry VIII is all the important information that one needs to know about her. Even if Henry VIII had fathered any of her children, they played no part in the Tudor dynasty. I have not yet bought ‘Bessie Blount’, a biography on Henry VIII’s mistress and mother of his bastard son Henry Fitzroy, and to be honest, can’t see myself doing so as I suspect there is even less information on her than Mary Boleyn.

9. ‘The Winter King’ by Thomas Penn is a welcome biography on Henry VII, who is so often over-looked. I first thought it was a novel – it certainly looks like one and the blurb at times read like one. I’ve only just started it but am enjoying it.

10. Erm, there isn’t a number 10! There’s been a real lack of Medieval books for me this year. The Tudors continue to dominate, and even the books out this year are among some of the weakest. Even novelwise, there was nothing that caught my eye. Please someone write a half-decent novel on Piers Gaveston.

Tis the season to be jolly.....

2011-12-23T05:58:00.000-08:00

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

The Lion in Winter

2011-12-05T12:48:00.000-08:00

Currently showing at the Haymarket Theatre is a production of 'The Lion in Winter', with Robert Lindsay and Joanna Lumley. I had the good fortune to go and see this play at the weekend. I've always been a big fan of the film, and just had to get tickets for this production. A feuding family at Christmas, with so much intrigue and Machiavellian plotting, the play sees King Henry II of England spending Christmas with his estranged wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, his mistress Alais, sister of the King of France and betrothed to his son Richard, and his three sons - Richard, Geoffrey and John. Henry has had Eleanor imprisoned for a number of years, and has only allowed her to join him at Christmas to discuss his choice of successor. The three brothers fight for the attention of their parents. Richard seems to be Eleanor's favourite, whilst a petulant and pouting John is his father's favourite. Geoffrey complains bitterly about being over-looked by both his parents. They scheme and plot and seek to out-maneuver each other. I particularly like the portrayal of John as the spoiled brat of the family, constantly reminding his siblings that he is his father's favourite. There's some wonderful witty dialogue between the characters. Below are some of my favourite lines.

Henry - Time hasn't done a thing but wrinkle you.

Eleanor - It hasn't done that. I have borne six girls, five boys and thirty-one connubial years of you.

Henry - I'll never let you loose. You led too many civil wars against me.

Eleanor - And I damn near won the last one. Still, as long as I get trotted out for Christmas courts and state occasions now and then.

During a meeting with his mother, Richard says 'Is this an audience, a goodnight kiss with cookies or an ambush?'

As Henry and John start to argue, Eleanor says 'Did you rehearse all this or are you improvising?'

After a huge argument between the family, Geoffrey tries to reassure John.

Geoffrey - 'John, use your head. Would I betray you?'

John - 'Why not? Everyone else does.'

Geoffrey - 'John, I only turned on you to get their confidence. It worked, they trust me.'

John - 'I tell you, your leg could fall off at the pelvis and I wouldn't trust the stump to bleed'.

And perhaps the best line is Eleanor's line in scene 5, when John panics when he sees Richard has a knife.

Eleanor - 'Of course he has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183'.

There are just so many witty lines, laced with spite and treachery, and all played out as the family prepare for Christmas.

Henry II's family may be dysfunctional, but just imagine the play that begs to be written - Christmas at the court of Edward II, with his wife Isabella - and Piers Gaveston. That's one play I'd love to see!

Is this the face of Edward II?

2011-11-12T07:30:00.000-08:00

The National Portrait Gallery in London has had a recent exhibition entitled 'Crowns and Tiaras'. I decided to pop in on my last visit to London. The exhibition was a collection of medieval portraits of kings and queens painted in the Tudor era. Apparently, in Tudor times, particularly in the reign of Elizabeth 1st, it was 'fashionable' to have a set of portraits of medieval royalty up to and including the Tudors. The NPG had a complete set on loan. The picture of Edward II was painted between 1590 and 1610. Here it is.

These potriats were supposedly based on surviving portraits of royalty. And yet this portrait of Edward II carries the warning -

The inscription on this portrait is later and wrongly inscribed with the name 'Edvardvus'. The facial characteristic and costume conform to other known portraits of Henry III.

I must say, it looks nothing like the beautiful effigy of Edward II on his tomb. The 'graffitti' on Edward's wife is the result of 18th century choirboys!

It seems the Tudors painted an idealised version of Edward II based on Henry III. If it's any consolation, the portrait of Anne Boleyn contained in the set is pretty awful as well. Anne Boleyn was always included in these sets because of course she was the mother of Elizabeth 1st. Just look at the difference.

Shakespeare's birthplace

2011-10-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

Whenever I visit Stratford, the one place I always visit is Shakespeare's birthplace. I'm always amazed that this house is still standing in a modern street. The 'birthplace' has been open for business for about 250 years. I first went as a child, and it was very basic. Now there are characters in Elizabethan dress and each room has been staged as it might have been when Shakespeare lived there. Of course, the house has been added to over the years and of course, I can't help speculating how much of the house is genuine. I was assured that 70% of the timbers were original. There are no original pieces of furniture that belonged to the Shakespeare family, but it is interesting the way the rooms have been set out. William Shakespeare was born here in 1564. His father was a glover. When he married Anne Hathaway aged 18, the couple lived here for a further 5 years.

This is the view of the birthplace from the street.
You enter via the Shakespeare centre which usually has an exhibition running. In recent years, the exhibitions I saw were about Shakespeare's early life and then the actors who have starred in his plays over the many years.

This is the view of the birthplace from the courtyard once you have passed through the Shakespeare centre.

This room reflects Shakespeare's father's business as a glover/tanner. Educational workshops are often run here.

This window is exhibited inside the birthplace as part of the exhibition about the history of the birthplace when visitors started to arrive over 250 years ago. I'm convinced that when I saw it in my teens, it was still in place in it's frame. It has been removed because scratched on it are the signatures of some the famous visitors who came to see the house - Charles Dickens scratched his name with a diamond ring. Other signatures include Thomas Carlyle and Sir Walter Scott. A book in which guests could also register includes the signatures of Lord Byron, Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Keats and William Thackery.

This is the room in which it is claimed that Shakespeare was born.

The birthplace is part of 'The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust'. In all, there are 5 houses to visit - the birthplace, Anne Hathaway's cottage, Mary Arden's house - the house where Shakespeare's mother was born (it is now a working Tudor farm), Hall's Croft, where Shakespeare's daughter Susanna lived with her husband Dr John Hall, Nash's House, where Shakespeare's grandaughter and her husband

Thomas Nash. Next to Nash House are the foundations of New Place. Shakespeare bought this property in 1597 from the Clopton family, when he was a wealthy and successful playwright. Shakespeare died here in 1616. The house passed to his daugher/grandaughter, before being soldback to the Clopton In 1759 then-owner Reverend Francis Gastrell, having become annoyed by the many visitors, attacked and destroyed a mulberry tree in the garden that was said to have been planted by Shakespeare.This enraged the local townspeople, who in retaliation, destroyed New Place's windows. Gastrell applied for local permission to extend the property. It was granted, but upon completion of this work, the annual tax on the property was increased. Rather than pay the increased tax, he demolished the house, choosing instead to live next door at Nash's House, which he also owned. There is currently an archealogical dig being carried out which memebers of the public can join in. Such a shame!

You can buy a pass which allows you to visit all 5 houses, and it is possible to do them all in one day. I've done it. Or you can spread your visit over a couple of days. Mary Arden's is the furthest from Stratford. All are well-worth seeing. There's a regular tour bus which allows you to hop on/hop off.

Here's the link to the Birthplace Trust

http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/home.html

Inside Anne Hathaway's cottage

2011-09-22T12:02:00.000-07:00

The 'bread oven' in the cottage.

I'm afraid it's a bit of a lazy blog post today - more pictures from Anne Hathaway's cottage - this time from inside. Of course, none of the artefacts inside actually belonged to William Shakespeare or Anne Hathaway. In fact, the cottage was only two rooms when Anne lived there. After her wedding to Shakespeare, she went to live with the Shakespeare family 'in town'. However, as an insight to what life would have been like at that time - the 1560s - it's a wonderful educational tool.

A wooden trenchard - a 16th century dinner plate, with a groove for salt.

The guides inside the museum are extremely helpful and seem to enjoy discussing the contents of the cottage. They were very knowledgeable.

Not the famous 'second best bed' left to Anne in her husband's will.

The kitchen is perhaps the highlight of the cottage.

Those Insulting Nicknames……….

2011-09-01T07:52:00.000-07:00

One of the charges levied against Piers Gaveston by his enemies was his arrogance and disregard for the nobility. Recalled from exile by Edward II almost as soon as he became king, Piers wasted no time in upsetting the nobility. He did this first at the tournament at Wallingford in December 1307, when the Earls of Warenne, Hereford and Arundel were all defeated. Undoubtedly there were some who were jealous of his title of Earl of Cornwall, his royal bride Margaret de Clare and his intimacy with Edward II. It seemed that Edward could deny his Piers nothing, even the ‘leading role’ at his coronation (Piers dressed in royal purple and carried the crown). Piers had been chosen by King Edward Ist as a good role model for his son, with his gracefulness and good manners especially noted, and it seems Piers brimmed with confidence. This confidence manifested itself in amusing himself and Edward by giving some of the nobles nicknames, which became public and were recorded. The chronicler of the ‘Vita’ says ‘He showed his contempt for the earls and barons by giving them vile nicknames’.

Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln was called ‘burst belly’, Thomas of Lancaster was called ‘the churl’ or ‘the fiddler’, Amyer de Valence, the Earl of Pembroke, was called Joseph the Jew and Guy Beauchamp, the Earl of Warwick, was known as the ‘black dog of Arden’. Whether Piers called his brother-in-law, and the king’s nephew, Gilbert de Clare ‘whoreson’ is open to debate. It would have been incredibly insulting to call Gilbert this, unless there had been some sort of falling out between Piers and his brother-in-law. Gilbert did not come to Piers aid when he was captured after he returned to England after his third exile – he did nothing to help even though he knew Piers was in terrible danger. Did Gilbert realise Piers’ cause was hopeless and threw in his lot with Warwick and the other nobles, even though he knew Edward would do anything to save Piers, and Amyer de Valence was hell-bent on protecting his honour? Did the stinging nickname of ‘whoreson’ help him make up his mind? Maybe there was some sort of dispute between Piers and Gilbert, with Piers choosing to insult Gilbert further by calling him ‘whoreson’.

The other nicknames chosen by Piers for the earls might seem tame by the standards of today – ‘burst belly’ and ‘the fiddler’ seem fairly harmless. But in the context of the times, they were highly insulting – these men were the most high-ranking men in the realm, relatives of the king and men who demanded respect. They must have felt humiliated to have been so ‘teased’ by Piers – and Edward did nothing to reprimand Piers for using these names. You get the feeling that Edward must have laughed in their faces. Politicians are often given nicknames in jest today – John Prescott, former deputy prime minister was called ‘Two jags’ (after his use of ministerial cars) and later ‘two jabs’ after an altercation with a member of the public. Tony Blair has been referred to as Bambi and Miranda. They take it in good humour as there is nothing they can do. But the nobles at Edward’s court were infuriated. The nicknames chosen by Piers may have had something to do with the appearance of the nobles. You can just imagine Lincoln as being somewhat overweight and his clothes seemingly to be bursting at the seams. Lancaster seems to have been given the ‘honour’ of two nicknames. The definition of churl is an ill-bred person lacking refinement or someone who is selfish and unwilling to share. This must have been chosen by Piers as an indication of the character of Lancaster. Did Lancaster resemble a fiddle player? Or was Piers hinting at his manipulative nature? ‘Joseph the Jew’ for Pembroke may well have something to do with Pembroke’s appearance.

The noble who took the most offence seems to have been Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. Piers called him the ‘black dog/hound of Arden’. Was this a reference to his physical appearance? Was Piers mocking his temper, in that Warwick may literally have foamed at the mouth in temper? Warwick is alleged to have warned Piers to beware the bite of the ‘black hound’. I have wondered whether there might be more to these nicknames than we realise – was it a sly way for Piers to slander the nobles – were there some hidden meanings in these nicknames that have been lost to us? Or was it that Piers resented the way the nobles ‘looked down’ on him? That they despised his elevation to the earldom of Cornwall, and it was Piers way of ‘taking them down a peg or two’? Or maybe it was a way of Edward and Piers just simply having some fun at the expense of the nobles? Whatever the cause, the nobles were out-raged and chroniclers like the author of the Vita Secundi thought the insults so serious they recorded them.

For further reading on the subject of Piers' use of nicknames, see Kathryn's excellent post from her Edward II blog -

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2008/03/piers-gavestons-insulting-nicknames-and.html

Anne Hathaway's cottage

2011-08-10T04:40:00.000-07:00

OK, it's time for some 'pretty chocolate box' pix from my recent visit to the Cotswolds. This time it's Anne Hathaway's cottage - which I admit I completely fell in love with. In Anne's time, it consisted of 2 rooms, which have been added to considerably over the years. The female descendants of Anne continued to live in the house until the early 1900s when it was sold to the Shakespeare Birthplace trust.

Blog round-up

2011-08-04T11:55:00.000-07:00

Having some holiday time has allowed me to enjoy looking around at new history sites for me. Here are some of the new ones that have caught my eye.

Was thrilled to find this blog dedicated to Thomas Cromwell -

http://masterthomascromwell.wordpress.com/

I'm a huge admirer of Thomas Cromwell's career and he is often portrayed in dramas as a sinister character - think Donald Pleasance in 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' or his portrayal in 'Anne of 1,000 days'.

Likewise, my favourite Tudor king, Henry VII, is often over-looked in favour of his son, Henry VIII, so I was pleased to find this blog -

http://henrytudorsociety.wordpress.com/

And a blog I've been reading for some time but haven't updated in my blog list -

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/

I also want to congratulate Kathryn at

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/

on getting her article published in English Historical Review. It's been a long time coming!

And now that the Duchesses have released Susan from their custody, I'm enjoying her revamped blog

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

The 'Kingmaker' exhibition at Warwick Castle

2011-08-03T04:03:00.000-07:00

For some reason, I am always drawn back to Stratford-upon-Avon. I love to visit this part of the country. I last went there about 3 years ago, and decided a weeks visit was needed again this year. A visit to Stratford inevitably means a visit to Warwick castle - my favourite fortress after the Tower of London. Last time it poured with rain and my focus was the inside of the castle. This time, there was brilliant sunshine so my focus was outside. One day at Warwick Castle is never enough - and in fact the castle offers re-entry the following day for a £1. Of course, the castle has to keep pace and is heavily commercialised. New features are the 'Princess tower' - which I skipped - and the Dragon tower as featured in BBC tvs 'Merlin'. I enjoy this programme, but didn't have time to visit, plus there was an additional £7 fee to go inside. It costs £21 to enter the castle, although it is cheaper to book on-line, and keep a look out for 'buy one entry ticket , get one free' offers. I know these magnificent castles have to raise money and have to have appeal to broader audiences, and initially I found it very difficult to see what had been done to some of these castles, at the expense of the rich history of places. It quite pains me that there is no mention of Piers Gaveston at the castle. I always look around the dungeons, and there is an area called 'Prisoners walk'. I often wonder where Warwick kept Piers - in the dungeons/rooms above ground (for the more important/rich prisoners) or in the hellhole below. I have the feeling the 'Black dog' would have settled on the below ground ones.

One area where the castle excels is it's educational 'Kingmaker' exhibition. It hasn't changed from 3 years ago, and I can't ever see them getting rid of this exhibition - it is such a valuable educational tool. The exhibition is set on the eve of Richard Nevilles final battle in the 'Wars of the Roses', with Neville now fighting for the 'red rose' and King Henry VI. It shows the preparation for the battle and features a series of wax models, with sound effects. Here are some of the pictures I took.

The last picture shows Neville rallying his men.

England's Queens by Elizabeth Norton

2011-07-22T11:45:00.000-07:00

I got this book after my visit to the National Portrait Gallery. It's called England's Queens and subtitled 'the private lives of....'. It's basically a biography of all the Queens of England, which is a real task for any writer - especially over about 450 pages. I've read a couple of Norton's books before, most notably on the wives of Henry VIII, particularly Anne Boleyn. They are very readable, but contain no real new information, and are a straight forward narrative of their lives. This seems to follow the previous books. So far, I've only read the very short chapter on Isabella, consort of Edward II - for obvious reasons! Nothing new in her mentions of Piers Gaveston - all the well-known incidents are there. Norton mentions Isabella marrying Edward II and seemingly not knowing anything about Gaveston. This always intrigues me because surely the French court must have known Edward 1st had banished Gaveston because of the closeness between his son and Piers. The story of Piers receiving the wedding jewels and wearing them at the wedding feast is retold, with the out-raged uncles being furious. Norton believes that Edward and Piers were lovers, but she mentions Edward having an illegitimate son, and takes the view that Isabella accepted the relationship between Edward and Piers as Piers was no threat to her, and the fact that she was pregnant while Piers was still alive is evidence that she lived a 'normal' married life with Edward and Piers' influence didn't stop her husband from having sex with her. That's refreshing! She exonerates Isabella from any plots against Piers, and doesn't make any suggestion that Edward and Piers abandoned Isabella in their flight - merely that they split up to ensure Piers' survival.

Much is made of the animosity between Isabella and Hugh Despencer. Norton believes Edward II was murdered, and that Isabella had a hand in it. She also repeats the tale of Isabella being married in her wedding dress, to show remorse for murdering her husband, and says that Isabella was buried in the same Greyfriars church as Mortimer - I can hear Kathryn's snort from here:)

I shall read the rest of the book, but I think it will be a case of dipping in and out of it.

A Visit to the National Portrait Gallery

2011-07-17T11:33:00.000-07:00

Finding myself in London over the weekend, I with a spare hour, I decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery. That makes 2 visits in the last 11 months. In my last visit, there was an exhibition on the portrayal of Lady Jane Grey - particularly the romanticised images from the Victorian era. Whenever I visit, I always find myself in the Tudor gallery. I have plenty of books with glossy pictures of the Tudors in, but there's nothing like coming 'face-to-face', as it were, with the real thing. You notice much more with the actual portrait than you would with any colour print in a book. Take this famous portrait of Anne Boleyn.

The detail on the dress on the actual portrait is amazing, particularly the detail on the fur on the sleeves of her dress, plus the decoration on the neckline. This portrait is described as being in a 'vulnerable' condition, and the gallery is asking for £4,000 in donations to repair it. The wood on which it has been painted is cracking. Visiting the gallery is free and they depend on donations.

Another of my favourite portraits is that of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex. Again, seeing the portrait in the gallery is different to seeing it in a book. What strikes me about this portrait is Cromwell's 'double chin' and the lines around his eyes. He looks very severe, and in my opinion is not a 'vanity' portrait.

The gallery has developed the use of 'infra red' technology to 'see' beneath the original layers of the portrait. In this portrait of Thomas Cranmer, the artist changed the position of the hands, the lettering of the books Cranmer is reading, and a ring on the end of a piece of ribbon in one of the books has been painted out. Makes me wonder did Cranmer himself ask for the changes or was it the artist?

This portrait of the young Edward VI is clearly meant to show him in one of his father's typical poses. Infra red technology shows, however, that the pose was more exaggerated than the final portrait. Edward's right foot has been re-painted - he originally had his legs further apart, but maybe the artist realised the pose looked ridiculous on a child. Edward is thought to be around 9 or 10 in the portrait. The arms of England appear in the right corner - these were added after the original portrait has been completed. It begs the question - was this portrait started before the death of Henry VIII? and the arms painted in when Edward became king?

I grew up with this portrait identified as Lady Jane Grey. It was only a few years ago it was identified as Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's sixth wife. It's all to do with the crown-shaped brooch the sitter is wearing - it's been identified in an inventory of Catherine's jewels. It's a full-length portrait, and I love the detail of her hands.

Of course, the one portrait I would love to see, that of Piers Gaveston, doesn't exist. Edward II wold surely have had a portrait of him painted. Of course, the earlier portraits of monarchs and nobility are much cruder that the Tudor portraits. Edward IV's hands look far too small for him in his portrait. But however 'crude', it would be a dream come true, to use a popular cliche, if such a portrait were discovered.

The gallery allows you to investigate the portraits in a special room on pcs. You can buy prints of the portraits, and it has a great gift shop, selling things such as faux pearl Anne Bolyen necklaces! And of course, the gallery itself is free.

http://www.npg.si.edu/

It's that time of year again.........

2011-06-19T10:51:00.001-07:00

It's the anniversary of the death of Piers Gaveston today - or rather, murder as I call it. Once again, I shall chose to celebrate his life and raise a glass of fine wine to him. RIP Piers!

The ‘secret illness’ of Piers Gaveston

2011-06-01T03:58:00.000-07:00

This post has been inspired by a recent post on Kathryn Warner’s excellent Edward II blog. It concerns the knighting of Edward Ist’s son, Edward of Caernarfon, the future Edward II, at Westminster on Sunday 22 May 1306. Kathryn says the event was ‘described by the contemporary chronicler Piers Langtoft as the greatest event in Britain since King Arthur was crowned at Caerleon.’. Here’s a link to Kathryn’s post on the subject –

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2011/05/knighting-of-22-may-1306.html

Kathryn brought to my attention the fact that Piers Gaveston was not knighted at the ceremony, but a few days later, and the fact that he was the only one of the group to be knighted at a separate ceremony. The only logical reason for this was that he must have been ill, and that the illness must have been de-habilitating enough to prevent him from attending the ceremony. What has sparked the interest of Kathryn and I is the nature of the illness, and the fact that Piers’ illnesses have been worthy of being recorded in documents.

An anonymous letter written in April 1311 records the fact that Piers was ill at that time - "A secret illness troubles him [Piers] much, compelling him to take short journeys." Almost an exact year later, Edward II is recorded as paying William de Burntoft, a doctor, and Brother Robert de Bermingham, a monk from Tynemouth, 10 marks each for caring for Piers in yet another bout of illness. Why was Piers’ illness in 1311 described as ‘secret’, and was it serious enough to strike again a year later? And what could it be that only allowed him to make short journeys?

My ‘ideal’ of Piers Gaveston, judging on what the chroniclers of the time recorded, is as someone strong and athletic. He was seen as the ideal role model for Edward II when he was a prince. It was hoped his good manners, grace and chivalric attitude would guide the prince. There are references to Piers being at war at the age of possibly 14 or 15, and attending tournaments. One report says he earned the ire of Edward Ist by abandoning the campaign in Scotland to attend lucrative tournaments elsewhere. There is an excellent description of Piers at the coronation of Edward II and Isabella by the Pauline annalist. Piers is described as "so decked out that he more resembled the god Mars than an ordinary mortal". His clothes might have been dazzling, but there is no doubt that Piers’ physical features added to this description of him as the God Mars. The tournament held by Piers at Wallingford in 1307 further enhances his reputation as strong and athletic, as we are told how he defeated and humiliated various nobles. Piers also married Margaret de Clare in 1307, and was able to consummate the marriage and father a child – Joan.

For me, all this information is at odds with someone who was prone to illness, and possibly a recurring ’secret’ illness at that. Perhaps Piers was merely unlucky with his illnesses, which could possibly all be different and not connectedl. But why use the word ‘secret’? ‘Secret’ suggests the illness may have been out of the ordinary, embarrassing or something that could be interpreted in a sinister way. Gabriele, on Kathryn’s blog, put forward Crohn’s disease or possibly malaria. Both cold be probable. Crohn’s might certainly have caused Piers some embarrassment, but not malaria. I did wonder if the illness might be something like epilepsy, which might possibly have been viewed as superstitious. However, this might strike at anytime and would be something Piers had no control over, and if he suffered an epileptic seizure, it might have occurred more frequently than his documented illness and something that he would have found very difficult to hide from others. It also begs the question how would anyone treat him for this? Hmm, I dread to think! Pus, whatever Piers suffered with, it took him days to recover from. This doesn’t really fit with epilepsy. The illness must have been so de-habilitating it caused the chaotic flight from Newcastle. The illness must have been so serious that Piers, and therefore Edward, could not flee to safety. This suggests to me that Piers would not have been able to move, or be moved. It might have been possible to move Piers if he had some sort of a fever – after all, the nobles were in hot pursuit of him. But if he were in some sort of terrible pain, Edward must have felt that he dare not move him. Another explanation for not moving Piers is that it was life-threatening. And yet, after treatment, Edward and Piers were able to flee, and Piers was prepared for a siege at Scarborough Castle, and Edward was not worried about Piers’ health to leave him there.

Another reason for the secretive nature of the illness might have been that it would give the enemies of Piers’ hope, in that his illness would soon carry him off. But then Edward and Piers were preparing for a siege at Scarborough, so whatever it was he recovered quickly was it was not deemed life-threatening. Perhaps it was something that caused Piers’ embarrassment – and if he was as vain and proud as we are led to believe, he would surely hate anyone to know that he had 1. a weakness and 2. an illness which would be mocked by others, especially his enemies. We will probably never know, but it is something certainly worth speculating about.

Having mentioned Kathryn's post here, I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate her on receiving a publication date from EHR for her excellent article on The Earl of Kent's plot, which I have been fortunate enough to read.

Holiday Reading

2011-05-15T10:04:00.000-07:00

After going through all the pros and cons, I decided to invest in a Kindle. I’ve far too many books. One room has 6 bookcases, all full, and there are boxes up in the loft. So, I decided to buy novels/paperbacks on Kindle to save some space. Plus, it's handy to take on holiday! The Kindle is very easy to use, and much better than the e-readers some of my friends have. I’ve already got about 25 books on there. Unfortunately, my first read on Kindle was a historical novel that might have been written in the 1970s. It was ‘Isabeau’, by Gemini Sassoon.

Now, I admire anyone who can write a book and get it published – but that doesn’t mean I won’t criticise the content. It’s not so much historical fact that concerns me in this novel, more historical interpretation. ‘Isabeau’ reproduces an awful lot of the stereotypical portrayals of Edward II and his wife Isabella. No surprise with the opening. Isabella thinking back to her wedding day. We have the usual, handsome, disinterested Edward and Isabella, who is naturally described as the most beautiful of brides who no man could resist. Isabella finds her husband really handsome, but is puzzled by his lack of attention to her. No surprise when Edward decides to tell Isabella on their wedding night that he won’t bother her as they have plenty of time for a full married life. So no mention that at 13 she may be way too young. Naturally, some courtiers are already in the know, and Isabella is bewildered.

It’s not difficult to guess what happens when they land in England – a foppish Piers Gaveston greets them richly dressed, in furs and velvet, and waves a handkerchief at Edward, who just has to dash and embrace him. Oh, and of course hands over the wedding presenets. And that’s the tone for the whole novel – Isabella is neglected, humiliated etc and only fights back when her relationship with her children is affected. Oh, and of course when she claps eyes on Roger Mortimer, who yes, is bursting with testosterone:) And who naturally gives Isabella the best sex of her life.

It’s obvious to me Gemini Sassoon really dislikes Edward II – there isn’t one redeemable feature about him. He’s even accused of not loving his children and neglecting them – even endangering them. There isn’t a shred of evidence for this. Edward was known to be a loving and doting father to his children. I found this a very difficult book to read. It was outdated in its portrayal of the marriage of Edward and Isabella, something I would have read when I was barely a teenager. Gemini Sassoon doesn’t seem to realise her particular interpretation is, well, ‘old hat’.

As for the Kindle, it’s definite thumbs up!

Holiday in Egypt

2011-04-29T11:35:00.000-07:00

Just returned from a holiday in Egypt. Didn't know an awful alot about Egyptian history, but have learned so much! Here are some pictorial highlights.

David Starkey’s ‘Crown and Country’.

2011-03-26T09:18:00.001-07:00

This book was one of my Christmas treats. I’ve always had a huge respect for Starkey, ever since I first saw him as a ‘witness for the prosecution’ in Channel 4’s ‘The Trial of Richard III’. I’ve subsequently watched all his television documentaries and read many of his books. I won’t review the whole book here, but I found his ‘take’ on Edward II and Piers very interesting. He starts, not surprisingly, by comparing Edward II with his father, and points out, rightly in my opinion, that whoever followed Edward Ist was in for a difficult time. He refers to the differences in character – the usual contrast between the warrior king Edward Ist and the ‘rustic pursuits’ Edward II enjoyed. Apart from the similarity in looks between father and son, they also shared a terrible temper.

Edward’s fascination for Piers is described as his ‘major personality flaw’, and that he only had ears and eyes for Piers. Exploring the relationship between the pair, Starkey affirms that no contemporary source explicitly says they were lovers – ‘but they probably came as near as they could’, and cites the well-known quotes, that Edward’s feelings for Piers was ‘the love, that surpasses the love of a woman’, and the infamous ‘David and Jonathan’ quote.

Much is made of Edward’s coronation oath, whereby he promised of uphold and defend ‘the laws and rightful customs which the community of the realm shall have chosen’. Therefore, the nobles saw the loyalty to the monarchy and not to Edward himself. They disapproved of Edward and Piers behaviour – Starkey says they were ‘breaking the rules’, and thus offended the nobles who saw themselves as the keeper of the rules. I particularly liked this quote from Starkey – ‘ Piers mockery of the nobility was the classic response of the outsider confronted by the clique of crusty old insiders’. The nobles, older members of this clique, saw it as their right to have their values and sensibilities to be respected by all – even the king. Membership to their clique was exclusive and limited, to those with the ‘right background’. ‘Their attitude was of course selfish and class-ridden’. Which begs the question, what if a member of the senior nobility had been Edward’s ‘favourite’? Would a homosexual relationship with a senior noble have been accepted? Would Edward have been left in peace? Or would powerful factions have been created? My opinion is that whoever Edward had become besotted with, whatever class he came from, factions would surely have sprung up. A king’s mistress could wield very little power at court, but a male lover was something else.

Although Starkey describes Edward as grief-stricken after the death of Piers, he sys the loss ran deeper than this. It was an affront to his kingship. ‘Gaveston was the thing in the world that had mattered most to him. But he had not been powerful enough or feared enough, to protect his life or avenge his death’.

Of course, Edward swore vengeance on the killers of Piers, and he would eventually take revenge on his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster. Edward and Piers had ‘gone along’ with exiles when threatened, but always with the intention they would re-unite. There’s no doubt in my mind that some nobles, namely Warwick and Lancaster, decided to assert themselves over Edward by murdering Piers. As well as ridding themselves of someone who thumbed his nose at them, they struck right at the heart of the king’s authority.

5 Piers related things I'd like discovered........

2011-03-06T11:07:00.000-08:00

The recent discovery of the ‘Henry VIII’ mural has really got me thinking about what else might be ‘out there’, waiting to be discovered. Well, actually, what I would like to be discovered. Here’s my ‘wish’ list for Piers. I’ve kept it to 5.

The first 2 are difficult to choose between, but I’m going to go with –

1. A portrait of Piers. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a locket with his likeness was hidden away somewhere? Or perhaps his likeness lurks beneath an ancient plastered wall as a mural. I’ve always thought of him as dark-haired but there’s just no way of knowing his hair colour. We just know he was athletic, graceful and with fine manners.

2. His tomb. We know that Edward II had Piers interred at Langley – eventually. Edward buried Piers some 21/2 years after his death in a fine tomb at Langley. There was a palace, Dominican friary/Church at Langley. Hardly anything remains. I’ve got in touch with the local historical society, and the best they can tell me is that a private school now stands on the probable site.

3. A ‘private’ letter from Piers to Edward II, preferably written in his own hand, revealing the true nature of their relationship.

4. A ‘private’ letter from Edward II, to Piers, revealing the true nature of their relationship.

5. Some of Piers’ ‘bling’:) Piers has the reputation of a love of finery and jewels. When Piers was taken, he had on him a silver box containing 3 large rubies set in rings ( maybe one was the famed ‘La Cerise’ ruby ring), a diamond and emerald. Who knows where these precious stones ended up? They could possibly still be amongst today’s royal jewels or in a private collection anywhere in the world. And no-one would their history. A few years back, I read an article about how a diamond worn in a portrait by Mary Tudor, Henry VIII’s daughter, was traced to the actress Elizabeth Taylor. Or how about one of Piers silver forks for eating pears?

An item not related to Piers I would love to see turn-up is Anne Boleyn’s famous ‘B’ pearl necklace, although I’m sure it would have been broken up and incorporated into some new jewellery.

A Review of Edward II at the Rose Theatre

2011-02-21T10:33:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Kathryn’s wonderful blog, I finally got the chance to see Christopher Marlowe’s ‘Edward II’. As look would have it, I already had one play booked for the weekend of February 19th. I usually go about once a month, and meet up with a few friends. One of my friends is a very keen theatregoer, and when I mentioned there was a matinee performance of Edward II on February 20th, she went ahead and booked it. She had never been to the Rose, but we’re both fans of the Globe.

The Rose is not as easy to find as the Globe, as it is an archaeological site. We found it and entered through a small door. There’s no foyer or box office as such, just a small office and a lady making tea and coffee. I suspected the theatre would only hold about 100 to 150 – and then we entered it, through a pulled back curtain. There were about 40 chairs, if that, arranged in 3 rows. The theatre was in darkness. We decided to sit in the front row, and for some reason, it didn’t dawn on me that the stage was the small wooden area in front of me! I would be able to stare ‘Piers Gaveston’ right in the eye, as it were.

There was no scenery and very few props. The actors costumes consisted of jeans, boots and t-shirts which had heraldic beasts printed on them to let you know who they were, and each actor then worse something else related to their character – so Edward II had his crown and a short, purple cape, Piers had a sword and pearls pinned to his t-shirt, and Isabella vamped it up with a purple cape and purple skirt slit to the thigh with a stocking top showing and a pair of Christian Loubotin shoes. The actors also had to ‘double up’ on parts, some playing 3 or 4 parts. Props consisted of a throne that doubled as the infamous table, a box and of course, the ‘poker’, which even glowed red.

In the programme, the director talked about Edward’s sexuality and the relevance of being gay today – pointing out a recent homophobic murder in Trafalgar Square and the blackmail of MPs over their private lives. Consequently, there is plenty of kissing and fondling between Edward and Gaveston, and you are made to feel the hostility and hatred of the likes of Mortimer and Lancaster. Both actors were superb in their role. Zoe Teverson vamps it up as Isabella and when she returns to depose her husband, she wears leggings and spiked, knee-high laced-up boots with a concealed dagger in one of them. Matt Barber plays Edward II, and at one moment he is maddeningly weak, dishing out honours as he thinks them up, and then displaying the flashing Plantagenet temper as he tries to assert himself over the troublesome nobles. He makes a very pathetic Edward at the end of the play, arousing real sympathy. He looked an utter wretch, and the horror of his impending murder was built with real suspense. David North as Kent deserves praise as an agonised Kent, defending his brother’s right to rule as king but struggling to accept his decisions. Joseph Bader made an excellent Piers Gaveston. A mixture of swagger, arrogance and passion. He asserts himself over Edward as soon as they both share the stage, and both berates and encourages Edward to take a stand over the nobles. And the contempt between Edward, Piers and Isabella is present every time they share the stage.

I’ve never seen a play like this before – with such a small audience and stage, but it was one of the best theatre experiences I’ve ever had! The two hours flew by and I was engrossed in the play. It didn’t matter about a lack of scenery etc, because the audience were right there in the heart of the play and totally engrossed in it. Behind the stage was the archaeological site of the original Rose theatre, and it made the performance that much more special.

Amazing Henry VIII mural

2011-02-07T09:25:00.001-08:00

Reading my newspaper on Saturday, I was stunned to come across an article about a recently discovered mural of Henry VIII. It's stunning! To think that something like this was just waiting to be uncovered........Always makes me wonder how many other portraits/objects are waiting to be discovered. Here are some photos of the mural - just look at that face! He looks truly terrifying. It's a real change from the Holbein portraits we are used to seeing - and nothing like Jonathan Rhys Meyers :>

Here's the story behind the mural - from The Daily Telegraph

A unique medieval mural of Henry VIII has been discovered by a couple renovating their Tudor home.
Angie Powell, 57, and her husband Rhodri, 56, uncovered the 20ft wide, six ft high, wall painting as they peeled back wallpaper and mortar from their grade II listed home.
The priceless picture, which shows the monarch sitting on his throne wearing his crown and holding a sceptre, is thought to have been painted shortly after the house was built at the turn of the 15th century.
At the time it was the home of Thomas Cranmer, the Archdeacon of Taunton who went onto become the Archbishop of Canterbury and helped Henry break from the Catholic Church and set up the Church of England.
Though the artist is unknown, it is thought to be unique.
The only other known mural of the King, painted in the Palace of Whitehall, was destroyed when it burned down in the 16th century.
Michael Liversidge, former head of history of art department at Bristol University, said the discovery was "totally fascinating" and of "enormous importance and significance".
"It would have been an expression of loyalty," he said.
"Cranmer could have done it as a tribute to Henry and that would make it an object of great importance and significance. It is a unique image."

One thing that bothers me about this report is that Cranmer was already Archbishop of Canterbury when the mural was painted. A minor detail, perhaps, but worth drawing attention to.

Some interesting finds in Swansea Museum

2011-01-22T07:24:00.000-08:00

I found myself visiting Swansea museum last week. It's an old, small Victorian building with some curious artefacts. There is a small medieval gallery upstairs, and I was delighted to find a couple of interesting artefacts. I took some pictures, and here they are. They show a gold ewer that belonged to Gilbert de Clare, Edward I's grandson, whose sister Margaret was married to Piers Gaveston. I've never really warmed to Gilbert because he abandonned Piers - when Pembroke asked for his help after Piers' capture by Warwick at Deddington, Gilbert did nothing to help his brother-in-law. I'm sure youth played its part - as it probably did when he was killed in battle at Bannockburn when he rode in without his 'coat'. The other pictures are of a stone head, thought to be Alina de Mowbray, and tiles from Neath Abbey.

Canterbury Cathedral

2011-01-10T10:12:00.000-08:00

It's January 10th, and I haven't blogged this year. I haven't finished my Christmas books, so will have to rely on one of my archive visits. Last August, I finally made it to Canterbury Cathedral. Here are some of my photos.

The tomb of the Black Prince plus copies of his armour etc made from originals placed over the tomb. The Black Prince was responsible for the Prince of Wales feathers and the motto 'Ich Dien' - 'I serve'.

There's also a picture of the shrine of Thomas Beckett and the tomb of Henry IV and his queen.

A very Merry Christmas to all!

2010-12-24T03:49:00.000-08:00

or, as we say in Wales, Nadolig Llawen! I'm sure Piers would say, 'where's my presents?' :) I managed to steel myself to finally watch 'The other Boleyn Girl' which was on tv this week, and felt relieved, in that surely no-one would believe this tosh could possibly be true? As the writer of a letter in the BBC History magazine reminded me, we have a duty to continue to expose blatant misleading untruths in 'historical dramas', because if we don't, they will come to be believed. Unless they are as bad as 'The other Boleyn Girl', I hope. Thank goodness for sites such as The History Police.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=143166202366731

My top 10 books of the year - well, last 15 months, actually......

2010-12-22T04:50:00.000-08:00

These are the books I've read in the past 15 months and would recommend -

1. Medieval Intrigue by Ian Mortimer - I blogged about this book recently. It's out-standing!

2. The Sisters who would be Queen by Leanda De Lisle - a fascinating and revealing life about Jane, Katherine and Mary Grey.

3. The Lady in the Tower by Alison Weir - a very readable book which brings together a variety of sources, for and against Anne Boleyn.

4. The Stolen Crown by Susan Higginbotham - the only work of fiction to appear in my list. I honestly couldn't put it down and it was a refreshing change to see the story of the Woodvilles and Richard III through the eyes of Buckingham.

5. Katherine the Queen by Linda Porter - an enjoyable book about the scholarly life of Katherine Parr.

6. Contested Will by James Shapiro. I've blogged about this book previously as well, and it has much in common with Ian Mortimer's, in that Shapiro takes the view that there is too much 'conspiracy' about Shakespeare, and that, at the end of the day, why shouldn't he have written the plays/poems? Why do people feel the need to disprove he wrote the plays etc? In some ways, the 'opposite' of Ian Mortimer's book.

7. Edward II by Seymour Phillips. OK, nothing really new in ths book, but a book on Edward II is always welcome, surely?

8. The Last White Rose by Desmond Seward - the threats faced by the Tudors from the remaining claimants of the House of York.

9. Elizabeth's Women by Tracy Borman - a look at the life of Elizabeth using the prominent women she encountered.

10. Death and the Virgin by Chris Skidmore. A very readable book about the life and death of Amy Dudley, the wife of Elizabeth's favourite Robert Dudley. Skidmore has uncovered the inquest into Amy's death, which revealed much more about her injuries. It was recently the subject of a Channel 5 documentary.

Have to mention 2 very disappointing books. The first really pains me - ' Jane Grey, A Tudor Mystery' by Eric Ives. His book on Anne Boleyn is THE book to read on Anne, but his book on Jane was a huge disappointment - mainly because I couldn't see any mystery that I didn't already know about, and the book was more about rehabilitating John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland. The second is 'Anne Boleyn, Fatal Attractions' by G W Bernard, who seems to use 'there's no smoke without fire' to convict Anne of at least one charge of adultery and the 'theory' that Anne, as a commoner, may have had no idea how to behave as Queen, whilst dismissing everybody else's 'theories'.

UK History magazines - December

2010-12-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

The BBC History magazine and 'History Today' both have some really good articles this month. 'History Today' has an article by Ian Mortimer entitled 'Barriers to the Truth', which once again has been written to support his excellent recent book, 'Medieval Intrigue'. He cites E H Carr's 'What is history?' for further reading, which takes me back to my university days. It was top of my history reading list for methodology.

The BBC History mag has published a letter in support of Ian Mortimer after that dreadful 'review' of 'Medieval Intrigue', which was nothing more than an attack on Ian's evidence for 'Medieval Intrigue' rather than a review of the book.

The BBC make also has a feature on Catherine of Aragon by Giles Tremlett, in conjunction with his new book on Catherine. The article is entitled 'Spain's Virgin Queen?' and focuses on the evidence used by the Spanish to prove Catherine's case that her marriage to Prince Arthur was unconsummated. The book is on my Christmas list, so I'll reserve judgment until I read it - but the article itself uses Spanish sources questioned years after Arthur's death, and likely to be as questionable as any Henry VIII produced to prove his case.

Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales

2010-11-21T11:12:00.001-08:00

I’ve been meaning to write this post for some time. The main delay has been in recovering my pictures of the tomb of Prince Arthur that I took earlier this year. I’m still struggling to recover them, but don’t want to delay my post any longer, so pictures will follow, hopefully. I’ve visited Worcester many, many times, since I was a child, and always visited the Cathedral and made my way to Arthur’s tomb. It’s always been one of my favourite tombs – encased in a beautiful chantry. It lacks an effigy, but may well have had a brass of Arthur on top of it. It’s been some years since I visited Arthur’s tomb, but I was delighted to find myself passing through Worcester and that meant only one thing – a visit to the Cathedral. Earlier this year, I bought a book entitled ‘Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales’, a collection of essays about the young prince, and his tomb, edited by Steven Gunn and Linda Monckton. It was very expensive, but well worth it. I have always wondered what sort of a king Arthur would have made. Read any Tudor novel that features Arthur, and I’ve read many, and he’s portrayed as weak and sickly, over-shadowed by his younger, stronger and healthier brother, the future Henry VIII. Indeed, we often get the scenario of Catherine of Aragon wising she was marrying the younger brother – which I strongly doubt, Catherine being 16 and Henry only 10. It’s also usual for Arthur to be portrayed as spitting blood and suffering from consumption, with Henry VII lamenting his sick and puny son. But where does this sickly portrayal of the prince come from? Yes, it’s the Victorians and their ‘spin’ on the historical evidence. The 19th century historian James Gairdner used Henry VII’s letter to Ferdinand, Catherine’s father, to portray Arthur as ‘sickly’. What Henry VII intended to convey to Ferdinand was his concern that at almost a year younger than Catherine, he didn’t want his son to over exert himself in his ‘married life’ because of his ‘tender’ age, and considered not sending Catherine with Arthur to rule a mini-court in Ludlow. ‘Tender’ becomes ‘delicate’, and the myth of the sickly Arthur is created. His betrothal to Catherine in 1497 elicited these words from the Milanese ambassador – Arthur was ‘about 11 years of age, but taller than his years would warrant, of remarkable beauty and grace, and very ready in speaking Latin’. Hardly the image of a sickly prince – and Henry VII did allow Catherine to accompany Arthur. The surviving portraits of Arthur show a handsome, serious, strong youth and there is no record of him being sickly. Because we know he died when he was 15, and have the image of his brother Henry VIII as the robust, athletic lion of England, whose own sons died young, Arthur has been portrayed as the sickly brother of the dazzling Henry VIII, cut down by the ‘family disease’, consumption. What we do know of Arthur is that he was given an excellent education and was groomed for kingship from an early age. The book contains evidence of Arthur’s movements and his household, and of the promise of his reign. Of course, it also suits supporters of the cause of Catherine of Aragon to have Arthur portrayed as the sickly prince, unable to consummate his marriage. It is one of the most hotly-contested debates in history, but in my opinion, I see no reason for Arthur and Catherine not to have consummated their marriage. I note a new book on Catherine once again quotes her as marrying the 'sickly' Arthur.

Arthur’s death in April 1502 left his parents grief-stricken – only Elizabeth of York and Henry VII could offer comfort to each other. Arthur’s funeral was a huge event. It was re-enacted in 2002, the 500th anniversary. A stained glass window was erected in the Cathedral to commemorate the event. It is a copy of the stained glass window of Arthur at Malvern.

The book is mainly taken up with the recent investigation of Arthur’s tomb. During my visit, I saw red stickers in place which marked the place of heat seeking equipment which had been used to investigate the tomb. It seems Arthur does not lie beneath the marble monument in his chantry, but a few feet away. I met a delightful, elderly and very knowledgeable local guide and asked him about the research, and he showed me where it is thought Arthur lies. We had an enjoyable discussion about what sort of king Arthur would have made, and how differently events might have turned out. What we both found very touching was that one of Arthur’s loyal household members, Gruffydd ap Thomas, requested his tomb be placed close to the prince he never forgot. When Gruffydd died in 1521, his request was granted.

A Visit to Chepstow Castle

2010-11-07T11:32:00.000-08:00

I visited Chepstow Castle a couple of weeks ago, and was amazed at the sime of it. It was built in Norman times, around 1067, and is famous for being in possession by William Marshall. It was badly damaged in the English Civil war. Here's a link for more info -

http://www.greatcastlesofwales.co.uk/chepstow.htm

Here are some of my pictures.

Anniversary greetings to Piers and Margaret

2010-10-31T12:24:00.000-07:00

November 1st is the 703rd anniversary of the marriage of Piers Gaveston and the king’s niece, Margaret de Clare. Edward 1st had died on July 7th 1307. The new king, Edward II, quickly recalled Piers and wasted little time in finding a royal bride for him. The chronicles state recalling Piers was Edward’s first act as king. He then made Piers the Earl of Cornwall, and a royal bride would surely complete his elevation into the nobility. Maybe it as also Edward’s way of ‘officially’ bring Piers into his own family.

Margaret de Clare was the king’s niece and sister of the young earl of Gloucester. Her mother was the king’s late sister, Joan of Acre and her first husband Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester. Despite the hostility the chroniclers were later to heap upon Piers, his marriage attracted little of their attention. We know the marriage took place at Berkhamsted and the king himself attended. Naturally, Edward was generous with his gifts where Piers was concerned. He gave the couple jewels totalling £30, £36 17s. 7d. on gifts for her ladies, £20 for a palfrey for Margaret and £20 for minstrels. In a further act of generosity, Edward provided £7, 10s. 6d. on coins for which to shower the couple as hey entered the church.

We have no evidence to tell us how Margaret felt about her marriage, but I doubt she was displeased with it. She was married to the king’s favourite and had become a countess. More honours would surely follow. And if we are to believe the descriptions of Piers, that he was handsome, graceful and well-mannered, she may well have been delighted. Margaret would of course have known her duty.

This month's BBC History magazine

2010-10-17T11:35:00.000-07:00

The cover has Henry VII and Henry VIII and an article by Desmond Seward to coincide with his book 'The Last White Rose - the secret war against the Tudors', which I have but have not began to read yet. In the book review section is a review of Ian Mortimer's 'Medieval Intrigue' by Nicholas Vincent, professor of history at the University of East Anglia. I admit to beng totally blown away, as it were, by Ian Mortimer's book, but Vincent is not. The review is meant to be available on-line but isn't 'showing' for me, so I'll quote from the magazine itself.

Vincent's main concern is ' Mortimer's doubts have burgeoned into a theory which itself has failed to win approval from the academic establishment.........critics have, on the whole, either sat firmly on the fence or just as firmly rejected his tottering tower of conjecture. Most writers would at this point pass on to better things. Not Mortimer, who has now brought together a collection of essays not only to restate his theory, but to indict his critics with grave crimes: a lack of professionalism, a herd mentality, a refusal to entertain ideas beyond the accepted concensus............[However] Far from being the victim of a spiteful academic cartel that has refused him access to the published media, Mortimer is in fact a best-selling author with a particular hefty axe to grind. The louder and more repeatedly he grinds his axe, the more he risks being mistaken for a solipist, incapable of dispassionate neutrality about his own pet theories'.

This is an abridged version of the review, which only offers a few sentences at the end on the quality of the book - the rest is taken up with a critique of Ian Mortimer's 'pet theory'. As I previously blogged, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and the struggle to get his essays published and taken seriously were a huge part of the enjoyment, plus Mortimer's challenge to question what we think we know about history. Perhaps he won't be surprised to find this reviewer merely challenges his 'theory' rather than reviewing the process of how his work has been received, challenged and evaluated, and how Mortimer arrived at his conclusion that Edward II did indeed survive beyond 1327. I'm certainly a convert!

Argument or facts? Ian Mortimer's Medieval Intrigue

2010-10-02T12:25:00.001-07:00

This post has been inspired by Ian Mortimer’s ‘Medieval Intrigue’, recently published. In fact, it’s basically a review of the book plus my thoughts. My interest in Edward II was sparked by the Jean Plaidy novel ‘The Follies of the King’ back in the 1980s. I was ‘brought up’ on Jean Plaidy, with my mother being an avid reader with a deep love of history. From a very young age – I can certainly remember being as young as 7, my mother would always tell me ‘historical stories’, and I started reading Plaidy when I was about 10. I was always in the library where they had a whole shelf of her novels, and then I discovered they had a complete set of the reference books she had used – ‘Lives of the Queens of England’, by Agnes Strickland, and Saturday afternoons were spent reading various volumes. Of course, I was also reading the ‘serious’ historical books by now, although there were none on Edward II at my local library. I must have been about 12 when I read ‘Follies’, and as always, with my interest sparked by Plaidy, I set about finding information on him. Thus the story that Edward II was murdered at Berkeley Castle with a red hot poker was fact to me – it had really happened, and I remember being appalled when I read his screams had been heard through the thick walls of the castle, and it had all been done by his wicked queen Isabella and her lover Mortimer. I was shocked that Edward III allowed the murderers to walk around without revenge. I then duly convinced my parents a few years later to take me to Berkeley castle to see the scene of the crime and visit Edward’s tomb in Gloucester Cathedral. ‘Follies’ had also sparked my interest in Piers Gaveston as well. I never questioned Edward II’s fate. At University, I specialised in medieval history and wrote an essay on Edward II, accepting the death of Edward II in 1327. I eventually allowed my interest to wane in that particular area, as there were so few books available - and no Internet – and developed my interest in other parts of history. I then came across Ian Mortimer’s ‘Greatest Traitor’, which frankly astonished me, and I readily dismissed his case that Edward II had survived. Plaidy’s books were re-issued, and I bought ‘Follies’, which led me to Kathryn’s marvellous Edward II site. It’s down to Kathryn that I no longer accept the red hot poker story, and began to accept that Edward might have survived. I feel myself very fortunate that she shared some of her research with me and answered all my questions. Because, as Ian Mortimer rightly states, once we are ‘brought up’ on so-called historical facts that have been unchallenged, it becomes very difficult for us to question and reject them. He uses the example of Alfred burning the cakes – I was brought up on that, reading the Ladybird history books – Florence Nightingale had her lamp, Walter Raleigh laid down his coat for Queen Elizabeth and Alfred burnt the cakes. As I got older, it became ‘the weather saved England from the Armada’ and Jane Grey was brutally beaten by her parents and was the idealised Protestant martyr. There were books that tried to challenge accepted views, and history, as Mortimer says, became split into ‘traditionalists’ and ‘revisionalists’. There’s also the charge that some historians are ‘conspiracy theorists’ – popular subjects included ‘JFK’ and Princess Diana, and even Dan Brown challenged with ‘The Da Vinci Code’, which in the UK had been flagged up in ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’. (I should point out that I don’t consider Dan Brown a historian at all – but Ian Mortimer points out that he was placed alongside him in a review of his article ‘The Death of Edward II’, which I think is dreadfully unfair).

I want to return to my University days for a moment. One aspect of my degree was the ‘methodology’ of history. My preference was always for the ‘narrative’ aspect of history. I remember being set a task using comparative case studies – not involving Edward II or indeed any king. But it shaped my interpretation of Edward II being murdered – because isn’t that what happens to all deposed monarchs? Any usurper would not keep the former king alive, as they would surely be a continual threat to them. The cases of Richard II and Edward V convinced me that Edward II would have to have been disposed of – murdered on the orders of Isabella and Mortimer. It was Kathryn that got me to re-asses this – because the cases are not the same at all. Edward II was deposed before Richard II and Edward V, and there was no real precedent for deposing kings and what should happen to them in his case study. Edward II was deposed to make way for his son, Edward III, by his mother and Mortimer – it was not his idea or actions which deposed his father, so he is not a usurper in the sense that Henry IV was. He was very much the ‘puppet’ of them, being only 15. Mortimer’s hold, in particular, was tenuous, for Edward III would surely seek to rule on his own, and Mortimer could find himself in real danger, especially if the story that he had had the king’s father ‘murdered’ became known. Would it therefore make sense to ‘fake’ the former king’s death from natural causes, and keep him a prisoner, and use him as a ‘force’ against his own son when he needed to?

Mortimer’s book is not about putting forward the ‘argument’ that Edward II did not die in 1327 – he uses facts to show that he did not. I’ve questioned Kathryn time and again about the points raised to prove Edward II was alive – and they always seemed to be ‘I’m not convinced’ or trying to find other meanings to challenge the evidence – like what on earth Lord Berkeley meant when he said he did not know Edward II was dead in 1330 – maybe the translation was wrong? Or maybe he didn’t know he had been murdered? Likewise the account of the Earl of Kent seeing his brother at Corfe Castle – surely it was an impostor set out to entrap Kent, who was known for his gullibility? And as for Edward III supposedly meeting his father in Cologne – well, that could have been an impostor trying his luck – after all, hadn’t there been people trying to impersonate either of the ‘little princes in the Tower’? Except that in Mortimer’s book, and in discussions with Kathryn, Lord Berkley’s words are a literal translation, Kent was not gullible and there were many other important men who supported his rebellion, and the ’impostor’ at Cologne seems to have had nothing to gain, was never punished and in fact was never referred to as an impostor.

Mortimer has written a stunning book in which he proves that Edward II was alive and did not die in Berkeley castle in 1327. The points I have mentioned are only a small part of the evidence – I haven’t, for example, even mentioned the Fieschi letter. I don’t want to post any ‘spoilers’ or replicate Ian Mortimer’s work in detail – but I advise any one with an interest in Edward II to read the book. The 2 chapters I enjoyed the most were ‘Twelve Angry Scholars’, in which Mortimer challenges his ‘peer reviewers’ most successfully and the chapter on ‘Edward III, His Father and the Fieschi’. His research into the Fieschi family and their connections with Edward II and Edward III is incredibly detailed and pieces together the movements of Edward II after 1327 and how he was able to do so. Also outstanding is his research of Edward III’s court accounts and his patronage of his father’s tomb at Gloucester – all makes sense and is proof.

No doubt Ian Mortimer has suffered by having his name bandied about with ‘conspiracy theorist historians’, which is very unfortunate, because in my opinion, he has shown there is a great deal of evidence that Edward II survived after 1327 – far more than the sole source that Edward II died at Berkeley of ‘natural causes’, namely Lord Berkeley. When you consider some of the flimsy books written about Richard III, and I’ll name the recent example of ‘Richard III and the murder in the Tower’, as one of the worst – full of, ‘suppose’, ‘what if’ etc – it would be a real shame if Ian Mortimer’s latest work isn’t given the respect it surely deserves.

Time for some Piers…….

2010-09-19T11:45:00.000-07:00

Well, sort of. As some of my fav blogs are having a ‘books related’ theme, I thought I’d follow suit. I’ve added quite a few books to my collection in the last few weeks. I’ve had J. S. Hamilton’s ‘The Plantagenets – history of a dynasty’ for a couple of weeks. Hamilton has written his own book on Piers quite a few years ago. This time he tackles the Plantagenet kings. I’m afraid I’ve only read the chapters on Edward II (naturally!) and Richard II. Hamilton is very sympathetic to Edward from the opening paragraph. He points out the problems Edward immediately encounters – obviously being in the ‘shadow of a colossus’, his father, and inheriting a bankrupt treasury and the ‘Scotland problem’. As for Piers, he doesn’t just re-hash parts of his bio.

I liked the way that Hamilton deals with some of the chroniclers at the time. He challenges the chronicler who says that Edward instantly ‘felt so much love’ for Piers as soon as he saw him, pointing out that Piers was in Edward’s service for some 5 years before their attachment became apparent. Hamilton also challenges ‘The Ponthieu story’ – whereby Prince Edward asks his father for Ponthieu for Piers and is verbally and physically abused by his father. He claims Guisborough’s chronicle appears to be a ‘set piece’, with reference to the biblical story of Saul confronting David over his relationship with Jonathan. This confrontation allegedly was the cause of Piers’ first banishment. Hamilton rightly points out that the banishment wasn’t permanent, and the conditions were not harsh. Edward Its may have been concerned about the nature of the relationship between the prince and Piers, but the lenient sentence passed on Piers suggests he was not that worried – as we know, Prince Edward had fathered an illegitimate son.

I learned something new in the chapter on Richard II that has a connection with Piers. I must admit I know very little about the reign of Richard II, so for any Richard II scholars out there, this will be already known. After his death, Richard was buried in the Dominican friary in Langley – yes, the same resting place for Piers. Or as Hamilton puts it, ‘the same resting place of another Lancastrian victim, Piers Gaveston’. It seems he was buried in the tomb of Edmund, Duke of York and his wife, before being removed to Westminster abbey by Henry V. Can’t help wondering if Piers’ remains might have been disturbed then.

Hamilton writes in such a readable and enjoyable style, I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the book.

This week, I also got ‘The Red Queen’ by Philippa Gregory. I admit to not being a fan of her work, but I got the book at an incredibly good price from my book club – for £4.99 it was too good to turn down. Not sure when I’ll get around to reading it though. I also got hold of a copy of Michael Hicks ‘False, Fleeting, Perjured Clarence’ – at a really good price! I’m currently reading his ‘Warwick the Kingmaker’. I really enjoy Michael Hicks books and have been after this book for some time, although I wasn’t willing to pay the extortionate price for it on Amazon. So many times I’ve been tempted, and then last week a really good price came up for an immaculate condition!

And my favourite on-line book? The Daisy and the Bear, at Ragged Staff’s excellent ‘A Neville Feast’ . Since ragged Staff moved server, I haven’t mastered posting a comment. . I LOVE it! If you haven’t already succumbed to it, try it out at - http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/

Yet another visit to the Tower of London – and an encounter with George, Duke of Clarence

2010-08-31T09:27:00.000-07:00

Whenever I visit London, I always seem to end up visiting the Tower of London. Having visited in October, I found myself heading there again in July. I didn’t intend to, but finding myself with a spare 3 hours, in which I intended to go shopping, I realised that yet again I’d be able to fit another visit in. So once again, I found myself heading for Tower Hill tube station. Once inside, I decided not to visit the White Tower or the medieval palace exhibition. My focus was on the chapel of St Peter ad Vincula, the Beauchamp and Bloody towers, and the Bowyer tower. I’d managed a fleeting visit to the previous 3 last time, but decided to take my time this visit. I always start off with my visit with a Yeoman Warder’s tour. Yes, I’ve heard their stories and jokes many times, but still enjoy them. They are a huge asset to the Tower – part of the tradition of the Tower. Plus, in my previous visits, it was the only way I could access the chapel of St Peter ad Vincula, where the remains of, amongst others, Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey are buried. I was surprised when the Yeoman ended his tour at the site of the scaffold, and on asking abot the chapel, I was informed it was now open to the public to visit whenever they wished. I headed to the chapel and having been in there many times, knew my way around and who was buried where. I wondered how other visitors would cope without the Yeoman warder giving his usual chat, and that’s when I discovered the latest addition for visitors to the Tower – the audio guide. I have mixed views about audio guides. I used one at Westminster Abbey, and still got confused, and didn’t bother with my visit to Hampton Court. I appreciate their usefulness for those not fluent in English or who have difficulty using guide books. However, I much prefer the Yeoman taking you into the chapel, telling you al you need to know and who is buried where, plus there is a sense of reverence. I also prefer to see people communicating with each other, asking questions and making observations – seeing families walking around in silence with headphones on seems odd to me. There’s virtually no inter-action between them.

The Tower seems to be gearing up for another exhibition shortly – the zoo at the Tower. There is scaffolding, coverings and banners behind the Jewel House making visitors aware of it. The Bowyer tower is behind the Jewel House, and I’d completely forgotten about it during my last visit. Having read Susan Higginbotham’s ‘The Stolen Crown’, which had me absolutely gripped from the start, I made a point of visiting the Bowyer tower, for it was here, as tradition has it, that George, Duke of Clarence, met his end – drowned in a butt of malmsey, if we are to believe Shakespeare. Although there were many visitors to the Tower that day, I think many may have been put off going further than the Jewel House because of the scaffolding and coverings. So when I ventured around the back of it to go to the Bowyer tower, there was no-one there except for one other visitor, heading into the Bowyer tower. Outside was a board informing visitor this was where George had met his end, and I admit I only skimmed it, and inside, was the story of his imprisonment. The tower was empty, apart from a large barrel in the corner and the sound of dripping. The other visitor, a man, was on the opposite side of the Tower. I headed over to the barrel, and thought how clever they had made it look - the top had an image of a hole projected onto it and you could see rippling liquid. As I gazed down on it, the image of a drowning man appeared, clearly intended to be George. It was cleverly done to make it appear as if one was watching from underneath the barrel. It was unbelievably realistic, and so unexpected, I confess I let out an almighty shriek! Very embarrassing, but luckily there was only the other visitor present. He swung round to face me, clearly shocked himself, and I could only garble ‘it’s supposed to be Clarence in there’ and point at the barrel – and of course, there was no sign of the image then. We had to wait several minutes for George to pop up again. On leaving the tower, I noted on the board outside, it did warn to expect a ‘surprise’. That will teach me to skim information boards!

BBC History magazine September issue

2010-08-25T13:03:00.000-07:00

The September issue has 10 places to visit for those interested in the Wars of the Roses. I've listed them in the magazine's order with their reasons in quotes. The magazine also has far more detailed descriptions and pictures.

1. Ludlow Castle, Shropshire - 'where the wars began.'

2. Bamburgh Castle, Northumberland - 'where the Lancastrians clung on'.

3. Raglan Castle, Monmouthshire - 'where Edward IV's favourite ruled'. (William Herbert)

4. Gainsborough Old Hall, Lncolnshire, - 'where civil rule continued'.

5. Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire - 'where the secnd war was won'.

6. Middleham Castle, North Yorkshire, - power base of watwick the Kingmaker and Richard III.

7. St George's Chaperl, Windsor - 'where Yorkist and Lancastrian kings flaunted their power'.

8. The Tower of London - 'where the bloodiest crimes were perpetrated'.

9. Bosworth Field, Leicestershire - 'where Richard III was slain'.

10. Westminster Abbey, London - 'where the first Tudor king built a magnificent chapel'.

I have visited all these places except number 6. Although it seems when I walked Bosworth field, I may not have walked the actual battlefield - complete with red rose (seriously!). Michael Hicks, one of my favourite 'Roses' historians, has written the article.

A visit to Hampton Court

2010-08-25T12:37:00.000-07:00

The Entrance to Hampton Court - 'The Tudor Palace'

I decided to make the most of my recent visit to see ‘Anne Boleyn’ at the Globe, and visited Hampton Court Palace. I haven’t been there since I was very young. It’s easy to get a train from Waterloo station to Hampton Court – they run almost every half an hour, and the palace is right by the train station. As last year was the 500th anniversary of the accession of Henry VIII, the palace is continuing it’s ‘Henry’ theme this year. Last year, the focus was on the women in Henry’s life, and to some extent, this continues. On the day I went, ‘Henry’ was in residence with his sixth wife, ‘Catherine Parr’. They were celebrating their wedding. The man playing Henry VIII was exceptionally good, and kept making appearances throughout my 4 hour visit, along with Catherine, his courtier and lute player. In keeping with the wedding theme, the Great Hall is set out for the wedding feast, and there were some wonderful notices about Tudor eating and social habits.

The palace is divided into ‘themes’. As well as the wedding theme, there is also a young Henry VIII exhibition running. It is set in part of the original palace, and the rooms occupied by Thomas Wolsey, who acquired the manor house there and turned it into a palace. The exhibition is set around Henry, Wolsey and Catherine of Aragon, and the early years of Henry’s reign. There isn’t really a lot to see, but the story is told through video and information boards.

The ‘Henry VIII’ apartments features the ‘wedding’ of Henry VIII. There are some well known Tudor portraits on loan and are displayed in the so-called ‘haunted gallery’ (the scene of Catherine Howard’s hysteria). The chapel is open to view, as well as Henry’s council chamber, which features ‘video’ performances from Henry’s councillors from the 1540s.

Hampton Court has 2 distinctive styles. The Tudor palace is much in evidence as you enter the palace. The monarchs that altered the palace were the joint sovereigns William and Mary. I have to say, their apartments hold little interest for me, but they make up the third exhibition and if you are interested in them and their baroque design, it’s well worth a visit, and if you are not, well, it’s interesting to see how the palace changed. They ran out of money, and thankfully, were unable to complete their redesign of the palace.

The kitchens at Hampton Court give an excellent insight to what life at court was like, and I’ll save this description for another day.

Below - the 'Baroque' Palace of William and Mary.

Initials of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn

'Old and new' meet.

A little bit about the Globe theatre.

2010-08-15T11:48:00.001-07:00

I can’t believe I’ve left it so ‘late’ to visit the Globe. The current Globe theatre was opened in 1997, and was the idea of the American actor Sam Wanamaker. Wanamaker had visited London in 1949 and had set out to find the site of the original Globe theatre. He was disappointed that there wasn’t even a memorial to it, as was I when I read about it. In 1970, he formed the Shakespeare Globe Trust, and in 1987, building work was started on the site of the original Globe theatre. The foundations were laid, and in 1993, the construction of the theatre itself was begun. I find it very sad that Wanamaker did not live to see the completion of his project – he died in 1993.

The original Globe was built in 1599, by Shakespeare’s players company, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The Globe burned down on June 29th, 1613 during a performance of Henry VIII. The thatched roof caught fire. No-one was killed or seriously injured.

As well as the theatre, the site also has a lecture room, eduactional facilities, book and gift shop and an exhibition, openly daily. I didn’t have time to go to the exhibition, and not surprisngly, it’s closed during performances.

On the subject of Shakespeare, I’ve been reading ‘Contested Will’ by James Shapiro which I bought at the Globe bookshop. It’s not really what I thought it would be about – that is discussing the candidates who might have been the ‘real’ Shakespeare. It’s actually the history, and I’d say pyschology, about the authorship debate. When it started, possible reasons for it and the thinking of the challengers of the authorship by promoters of Francis Bacon and the Earl of Oxford. It’s thought provoking and an excellent read.

Further Thoughts on 'Anne Boleyn'

2010-08-08T11:28:00.000-07:00

I was surprised that Brenton chose George Villiers, later the Duke of Buckingham, as the favourite of James 1st, instead of Robert Carr, who would have been the favourite at the time. The play covers James and Villiers meeting and the start of their relationship. At one point, James puts on Anne Boleyn's dress, dances with Villiers, and then kisses him on the lips. In the aftershow discussion, some of the audience made comparisons with other members of royalty. At one point, when Anne says she is Henry's 'true love', she uses the phrase 'the Queen of his heart', which reminded me, and others, of Princess Diana's desire to be the Queen of hearts, and Miranda Raison said this occurred to her. Another audience member remarked that James and George's relationship reminded him of Charles and Camilla - in being secretive -and also Edward II and his lover. I hoped he meant Piers! Although, the comparison of Charles and Camilla and Edward and Piers I find mind-boggling. Piers cared so much about his appearance and was complimented on his manners - erm, harldy much in common with Camilla. (I'm not a fan). Undoubtedly there were three people in Edward and Isabella's marriage, but the difference is that Charles could have married Camilla before Diana and didn't.

The comparison with James Ist and Robert Carr/George Villiers makes more sense, although James doesn't seem to have been as faithful to his favourites as Edward II. And what about James' Queen - Anne of Denmark? She was not as powerful as Isabella, but she seems happy to have tolerated James and his favourites, and went on to have many children with James. James' relationship with his favourites may have caused petty jealousies at court, but didn't really lead to any crisis. Scandal, yes - the infamous case of the murder of Thomas Overbury by Robert Carr and his wife Frances Howard. James survived it relatively unscathed, and both Carr and his wife, although convicted, were not executed. In my opinion, the majore difference is the role of the monarch and parliament, which had changed drastically since the reign of Edward II.

I will take this opportunity to recommend Anne Somerset's 'Unnatural Murder', about the Overbury case. It's a fascinating and riveting book about the scandal.

A Review of ‘Anne Boleyn’ by Howard Brenton

2010-08-07T10:56:00.000-07:00

It’s been a pleasure for me to attend 2 productions at The Globe Theatre in London. I’ve never attended any plays there or been on a tour of the Globe, so it was a thrill to experience Shakespeare’s Henry VIII and a new play, ‘Anne Boleyn’, in an Elizabethan setting. Fortunately both plays took place in glorious sunshine on the Saturday matinees I attended. ‘Henry VIII’ is not one of my favourite Shakespeare plays – it was written towards the end of his career and lacks a ‘real villain’ in Cardinal Wolsey. The actress playing Anne Boleyn in the play was Miranda Raison, (previously seen in Spooks), and she would go on to play Anne in Howard Brenton’s new play a few weeks later.

Brenton’s take on Anne Boleyn is as a keen promoter of the Reformation, with Anne passionate about William Tyndale’s ‘The Obedience of a Christian man’. The play opens with the ghost of Anne Boleyn, and the setting is the court of James 1st early in his reign. James has been going through Elizabeth’s possessions, and comes across a chest containing Anne’s Coronation day dress and a copy of Tyndale’s book hidden away. James is faced with problems with religion early in his reign, and he calls upon Anne to show him how to finish what she started. James 1st is played by James Garnon, who is out-standing in his portrayal of the ‘wisest fool in Christendom’. James is flamboyant, sharp-tongued, playful, clever and manipulative, as well as great fun to watch. The play then presents us with a serious of flash backs to Anne’s life contrasted with James’ problems with the clergy.

This is obviously first and foremost a drama. Nevertheless, the play is very accurate in it’s portrayal of Anne’s life. We never see Katherine of Aragon, but Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell both dominate the play. Cromwell eventually reveals his reformist reviews to Anne and gives her his support for the divorce. Henry VIII is played by Anthony Howell, ( previously in Foyle's War) and his scenes of courtship with Anne are charming. The play’s language is in stark contrast to Shakespeare’s Henry VIII – speeches are short and precise, and characters give us a modern slant on their thoughts – Anne wishes Katherine would ‘piss off and join a convent’. I thoroughly enjoyed the play.

Afterwards, I was lucky enough to attend a question and answer session with the cast in the lecture room at the Globe. Howard Brenton’s chief source for Anne was Eric Ives book, the best biographer of Anne in my opinion. Miranda Raison said she prepared for the role by reading selected parts of Ives biography. The actor playing Tyndale revealed he had read a bio of him and his works to prepare for the role. Anthony Howell had actually appeared in the film version of ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ and already had background information. Interestingly, other cast members had not done any research.

Miranda Raison was excellent in the role of Anne – showing the religious side of Anne’s life, her vivacity and charisma. There was none of the ‘sexiness’ of the recent ‘The Tudors’ tv production, and Thomas Boleyn didn’t appear, so we did not have the ‘father pushes daughter’ scenario either. This is a thoughtful and enjoyable play, and I'd recommend anyone with an interest in Anne , Henry VIII or James 1st to see it.

Making Changes

2010-08-07T10:54:00.000-07:00

I’ve decided to change the content of this blog. Ultimately, it is dedicated to Piers Gaveston, known sometimes as Perrot, the favourite of Edward II. Alas, I do not have the time to devote myself entirely to researching Piers, and could never hope to match the research done by Kathryn at her Edward II blog. Plus, I read a range of historical biographies and novels, and go on a number of historical visits unrelated to Piers but never get to share them. So I’m going to relate my experiences and opinions here – hence the Plus part. Hopefully this will ensure I post more regularly.

Piers Gaveston Day!

2010-06-19T02:25:00.000-07:00

Today is, of course, the anniversary of Piers' murder - I won't use the word execution. I have neglected Piers terribly the last couple of months - due to heavy work commitments. But I've decided today will be Piers Gaveston Day. I won't be dwelling on the sadness of Blacklow Hill. I shall be remembering the fun side of Piers - those searing insults to the barons, his mastery as a knight - particularly the Wallingford tornament - and his love of finery. Most of all, his loyalty and devotion to Edward II. I shall definitely be raising a glass to toast him tonight!

Which actor should be cast as Piers?

2010-04-15T11:33:00.000-07:00

A fun post today, inspired by Alianore who was inspired by me, if you follow! Not knowing how Piers Gaveston looked, I've often wondered if a film was made about Edward II, who should be cast as Piers. We don't even know if Piers as a blonde or dark-haired. I've always thought him to be dark-haired - don't ask me why! And for some reason, Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian is my candidate for Piers.

Despite looking incredibly young, Ben was 27 when he played this part. The fact that he's kitted out as 'a knight' is a huge advantage for Ben.

My favourite actor is Johnny Depp. As Captain Jack Sparrow, he has the swagger, the bravado and the flamboyance to be Piers. He's also really handsome! But so established is Johnny as Capt Jack, I can't imagine him as Piers. Hmmm, but how about Johnny as 'himself'? At 46, he's a bit too old to be Piers. But maybe in his younger days? How about this pic -

Or how about Johnny in one of my fav roles as Don Juan DeMarco?

My last contender - and I must admit, a real outsider for me, is Orlando Bloom. As William Turner in Pirates of the Carribean.

I'm definitely sticking with Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian, with Johnny as Don Juan in second place. I wonder who would be the ideal Edward II?

A review of Piers De Gaveston, by E.e.c.

2010-04-07T14:01:00.001-07:00

This novel was originally published in 1838. It has been re-published by General Books using OCR software. I suspect E.E,C. is a woman, but there is no identification of the author. In the preface, the author gives nothing away, and continually refers to himself or herself as ‘the author’. This happens throughout the novel as well. The author ‘shares’ commentary with the main characters in the book, inviting them to tell their story, and then taking over for them. It becomes annoying when the author says he/she will leave the character to dwell on what has happened to them, and not intrude on their private thoughts.

The main focus of the novel is Margaret de Clare, Edward II’s niece. Margaret is a mature 17 at the start of the novel – not the ‘child bride ‘ of Piers. She is ‘hopelessly in love’ with Hugh Audley, and despite her status she has promised herself in marriage to him. All this has been done in secret because her brother would not approve. Then along comes Piers Gaveston, who falls in love with her, and asks Edward II for her hand in marriage. Margaret has taken a dislike to Piers, who, although very handsome, is haughty and proud – no surprise there! Margaret refuses to marry Piers, and it’s a case of being ‘forced’ by her family to do her duty. She reluctantly marries Piers, and, because of her family honour, acts the dutiful wife.

When Piers is banished to Ireland, Margaret dutifully promises to follow him, but is concerned Piers doesn’t want her to follow him. When she gets to Ireland, she founds out the reason why. Her husband spends hardly any time with her, and Margaret is shocked to find out he has a long-term mistress – the French-born Adele. Adele has been dishonoured by Piers – he persuaded her to elope with him, before he met Margaret, and she has followed him around as his mistress. The author says she has been ‘degraded’ and brought shame on her family. She loves Piers and cannot help herself. Margaret discovers that Piers has tired of her, and to gently cast her off, has asked Edward to declare and interest in her and take her as his mistress to free Piers of her. I know Edward is devoted – but really! Adele is horrified, and Margaret resolves to send her home to her family, away from the womanising Piers! This she manages, and of course, by then, Piers realises he really does love Margaret. There has to be a however – because it’s not long before Piers is tempted again by a lady of the court – in between cheating at cards at court. He has to cheat at cards because he and Edward have no money, and HE has to bankroll Edward – how sweet! The lady concerned is whisked away from court by her brother – one of the leading nobility who swears revenge on Piers.

The villain in this novel is ……Pembroke! How’s this for a twist? He has married Adele! So when Piers is ‘captured’ by Pembroke, Adele tries to help him to run away with her. But Piers is now once again devoted to Margaret, and faces his fate.

Margaret is the heroine of the novel – the author makes much of her obedience to her husband, which grows into love. Piers is called ‘our hero’ throughout, and is re-deemed by his love for Margaret. Margaret swoons quite a bit and is of course very brave. The author informs us that Adele realises she has led a life of vice and dies ‘by her own hand’. This is quite a charming novel, a novel of its time, and not to be taken seriously.

A Few More Words on Dodge……

2010-03-25T12:41:00.000-07:00

After the murder of Piers, chronicles claim that some shoe-makers recovered his body where it had fallen, and took it to Warwick Castle, where the Earl of Warwick refused to receive it. It was then taken by the Dominican friars to Oxford. There the body lay in state awaiting burial. Piers had died whilst excommunicated and Edward had wanted to exact revenge upon his murderers before finally burying him. Piers was finally laid to rest in January 1315 at the Dominican house in Kings Langley. This ‘house’ was built in the grounds of the palace of Kings Langley.

Dodge has inquired into churches in Kings Langley, and the ‘Church of the Friars Preachers was long gone’. All Saints Church is still standing, and Edmund of Langley's tomb was removed there. Dodge says that the altar tomb of Sir Ralph Verney, who died in 1528, was once mistaken for Piers’ monument. Edward would surely have given Piers a fine tomb – and it makes me wonder why that to wasn’t removed to All Saints? I have the feeling it would have been defaced etc during the Reformation.

Another 'new' 'old' book

2010-03-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

Another publication from 'General Books', using OCR software, arrived today - 'Piers de Gaveston', by E.E.C. It's a novel and was originally published in 1838.

I still haven't finished with my comments on the Dodge book, but will also review this book when I've read it.

Review of Piers Gaveston, A Chapter of Early Constitutional History by Walter Phelps Dodge

2010-03-10T12:00:00.000-08:00

This book was originally published in 1899. It was re-published by General Books in 2009. I got it from Amazon. The book is available on-line, but I would much rather have the hard copy. Inside the cover, there is a blurb that explains how this book was re-published – the original book was scanned using Optical Character Recognition software and then printed. It does keep the cost of the book down, and as I have said, I prefer a ‘hard-copy’ of the book than reading it on-line. However, there are some drawbacks – namely the photographs cannot be reproduced - you are able to see them with the on-line version – and the OCR cannot always recognise the words, which leads to a corruption of some words and sentences.

Written in 1899, it is a product of its time, and avoids identifying the nature of the relationship between Edward II and Piers Gaveston. In some parts of the books, Piers is referred to as ‘the favourite’ or even ‘Edward’s nephew’. At one point, the relationship is referred to as ‘sordid’. However, in the Appendix, Dodge makes his viewpoint clear. He refers to ‘some 16th century obscure chroniclers’ have ‘characterised the relationship between Edward and his favourite as being like those attributed to Socrates and Alcibiades. There is, however, little authority for such a scandalous supposition.’ Dodge then cites Hume, who says their relationship was ‘innocent though frivolous’. Dodge obviously never considered that in Edward’s case, actions speak louder than words, and 14th Century chroniclers just may have been wary in their recording of events.

Dodge gives a good account of the life of Piers’ father and the early life of Piers. In his discussion for the reasons for Piers’ banishment, however, he makes light of the ‘Ponthieu’ incident, giving it only 3 lines. He cites the incident of the ‘legend’ of Piers being caught hunting in the ‘Bishop of Chester’s park’ or the abandonment of the border war with Scotland. He notes the King was concerned over the Prince’s attachment to Piers. And that’s it.

Dodge claims Piers birthday was in December – without giving the source – but says that Edward gave him 2 gold rings, one set with a ruby, the other an emerald, as presents. This just made me think Piers was re-acting like anyone else with a birthday in December – making sure he got 2 presents :)

Dodge believes the animosity of the barons was mostly based on Piers being a foreigner, and that Edward chose Margaret de Clare as his bride to try and neutralise this. He claims that Margaret appeared fond of her ‘handsome husband’ and ‘never lost her affection for him’. Later on in the book, however, he says Margaret is no more than a ‘plaything’ for her husband!

Regarding Edward’s marriage, whilst referring to Isabella as a ‘child bride’, he says ‘from the first the Queen took a violent dislike to Gaveston’. His evidence is Piers behaviour at the Coronation – his ostentatious clothes and of course, pocketing Isabella’s jewellery! Usual clichés! He does go on to say though that Isabella had a malicious and spiteful character, and that Edward failed to spot her true character. In fact, the whole of Dodge’s book is based on ‘if only…’. If only Piers had realised he could be a good influence on Edward, if only Edward were not so childish around Piers, if only Piers could have distinguished himself in England as he did in Ireland. Dodge believes that Piers had the potential to be a ‘good favourite’, and blames Edward for being weak and the barons for being as greedy and corrupt as they accused Piers.

One baron who is blasted by Dodge is Pembroke. He lays the blame for Piers fate squarely on Pembroke’s shoulders. Either Pembroke knew Warwick was on his way and left Piers to his fate, or he was incredibly stupid to leave Piers at Deddington and poorly protected. He even accuses Pembroke of leading Piers further away from any of his supporters by heading south. He is scathing that Pembroke didn’t arm himself and head for Warwick castle himself and demand to speak with Warwick. I don’t think Dodge takes on board how Pembroke’s honour was slighted, and his response afterwards. It does make me wonder though why Pembroke didn’t at least try to go to Warwick and negotiate with the barons there. Maybe he knew it was futile? Or maybe the lack of response from Gloucester made him realise he would be very much on his own in defending his honour and prisoner, and no one else nearby was going to help.

Dodge is also scathing with Lancaster. He says he was unpatriotic, didn’t have England’s interests at heart, and was avaricious and corrupt.

Dodge believes that Piers career could have been very different, and says that his epitaph could have been ‘wasted opportunities’. Overall, it is a positive biography of Piers, with good use made of sources. Brad Verity rightly pointed out that Dodge translated and examined sources not used by Chaplais or Hamilton, the most recent biographies. Definitely a Piers biography to be read.

Yet another great big THANK YOU to Brad Verity

2010-03-09T02:29:00.000-08:00

Brad has offered his pictures of the tomb of Arnaud de Gaveston to be posted here. They are splendid pictures, and as Brad points out, you can see how different Piers' Coat of Arms as Earl of Cornwall are to his father's.

A great big Thanks to Brad Verity!

2010-03-07T11:29:00.000-08:00

Who has sent me 2 marvellous photographs from Winchester Cathedral of the tomb of Piers Gaveston's father, Arnaud de Gaveston. I'm amazed it has survived so well. A big thank you Brad as well for the link to your brilliant website - geneology and the descendants of monarchy.

Here's the link for anyone who wants to check it out -

http://royaldescent.blogspot.com/

A New/Old Piers book

2010-02-26T11:56:00.000-08:00

Browsing on Amazon last week, I came across a re-issue of 'Piers Gaveston; A Chapter of Early Constitutional History' by Walter Phelps Dodge. The book was originally published in 1899, and has been available on-line for some time. It was re-issued in December 2009. Naturally, I ordered it, as it was reasonably priced, and much easier to read than on-line. Sadly, it doesn't have the pictures included. The on-line version (which is available for download), has a picture of the tomb of Piers Gaveston's father. I've never read the full text, so am looking forward to reading it.

Neath Abbey

2010-01-09T12:01:00.000-08:00

Ok, not really to do with Piers, but certainly Eward II. Edward fled to Neath Abbey and was pursued there by the supporters of Isabella, his estranged wife. Coins from Edward's reign have been found hidden in pillars, which Edward must have had put there. And this is not even the picture I wanted to post! There's a fantastic picture of Neath Abbey in the snow in a local paper, but it won't allow me to post it, so I came up with this one from last year, which is almost as spectacular.

New Hugh Despencer Blog

2010-01-07T05:13:00.000-08:00

Have just come across the new Hugh Despencer website by 'Lady Despencer' - Jules. It looks fantastic! Visit it it here -

http://www.hughdespenser.com

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-20T12:04:00.000-08:00

As is traditional this time of year, there are a range of novelty books with a history focus available. I've been treated to 'Robin the Hoodie - An ASBO history of Britain'. There's a section on Edward II, which raised a smile from me. It's called 'Edward II: A Royal Eye for the Straight Knight'.

Edward is described thus - 'This strange youth didn't seem at all warlike like his father, and as for booze, it as rumoured the only thing he would touch was gin. His favourite companion was a flamboyant young knight named Pirs Gaveston; togeher, the pair would spend their time giggling, whispering and criticizing the facial hair of the king's favourte knights.' Ed and Piers would also skip jousting lessons 'to hang around in the woods reading French poetry'.

Of course, Edward Ist fails to change his son's ways, and when crowned king, Ed decids to change things at court - the barons are summoned to the Tower, which has had a makeover. The Earl of Arundel is seized by Piers and some other knights, dragged through the streets of London to a merchant's house, where he is tied to a chair, and a blade held close to his throat - and is then shaved! Edward has orered a 'Style Emergency!' Arundel has his eyebrows plucked, his hair cut and given a bath, with new clothes and some chic Italian boots:) The other barons are astonished when Arundel appears in front of them after his makeover, with a spring in his step.

'"well?" said Edward.

"Well...' replied the earl slowly, "Mrs Arundel was impressed."

"How impressed?" said Edward.

"Like four times impressed", the earl roared.'

The chamber then descends into uproar. The barons love Ed's makeovers, and sign up for them. Their castles and themselves are madeover, and 'Edward II was celebrated far and wide as the leding light of a new golden age. It could have lasted forever were it not for a revolutionary new beauty treatment which arrived from France in 1327. Witht he benefit of hindsight, red-hot poker colonic irrigation was obviously a step too far.'

Other stories to receive the treatment are 'The peasants Revolt and the Birth of Social Networking', 'Henry VIII, Lover, Stoner, Entrepreneur' and 'Walter Raleigh, social climber'.

Inspired by the slogan generator featured on Alianore's site

2009-12-17T13:25:00.000-08:00

http://thesurrealist.co.uk/slogan.cgi

I just couldn't resist -

1. Piers Gaveston Really satisfies – guaranteed by Ed?

2. Thank Piers Gaveston it’s Friday – why not every day?

3. Marvin the Mountie always gets his Piers Gaveston – Not if Ed gets him first!

4. Your Piers Gaveston, Right Away – if only!

5. I’m not gonna pay a lot for this Piers Gaveston – oh yes you are, he has expensive tastes!

6. Just for the taste of Piers Gaveston – MMM!

7. Get The Piers Gaveston Habit – a habit Ed couldn’t break!

8. Gotta Lotta Piers Gaveston – just ask the nobility!

9. Better Living Through Piers Gaveston – Ed certainly thought so!

10. It Makes Your Piers Gaveston Smack! – it will if you try to banish him!

11. Piers Gaveston Saves Your Soul! – one of Ed’s arguments against banishment?

12. Piers Gaveston keeps going and going! – so says Ed?

13. Makes You Feel Piers Gaveston Again! – erm, so says Ed!

14. Cleans a big, big Piers Gaveston for less than half a crown! – half a crown? You’ll be lucky!

15. Savour the flavour of Piers Gaveston – recommendation by Ed.

Alianore and Lady Despencer's Brilliant new website

2009-12-09T11:55:00.000-08:00

I'm so sorry to be so late mentioing the new website from 2 of my favourite bloggers Alianore and Lady Despencer. It's called 'Everything Edward' and here's the link - http://www.everythingedward2.com/

There is so much information on the life and times of Edward II, with links to books, resources etc, all meticulously researched. There's also some fun stuff on there. I particularly like the 'mythbusters' section. The articles on Piers are real gems as well.

Photos of my visit to the Tower of London

2009-11-15T11:45:00.000-08:00

Nothing to do with Piers, but last month I went to the Tower of London to see the Henry VIII Exhibition 'Dressed to Kill'. I asked my buddy Alianore for any links with Edward II/Piers, and she sent me some information, telling me to look out for the Langthorn Tower in particular. I made my way towards the Medieval Palace exhibition. For those who haven't been there, the exhibition starts in St Thomas' Tower and is set out as it might have appeared in the reign of Edward Ist. St Thomas' Tower was built over the now infamously named 'Traitors Gate'. It was known as the Watergate in the time of Edward Ist.

Some more pictures - the Medieval Palace Exhibition

2009-11-15T11:27:00.000-08:00

Historians have worked together to portray the palace as it might have been in the time of Edward Ist. I was most impressed with the bed - very cosy-looking.

St Thomas' Tower, Traitors Gate and the Langthorn Tower

2009-11-15T11:20:00.000-08:00

According to Alianore, Edward II spent time in the Langthorn Tower - maybe even with Piers? Unfortunately, the Langthorn Tower suffered a fire in the 1700s and has been restored. It is often used as the education room in the Tower. It's quite small, and surprised me that the king would occupy such a small tower. He would nothave been able to 'hold court' here - so it was possibly his private chamber.

Review of 'The Gascon' by John Colin Penford

2009-10-10T14:05:00.000-07:00

I had a real stroke of luck a couple of weeks ago – and got my hands on a copy of ‘The Gascon’ by John Colin Penford. I’ve just finished reading it and somewhat enjoyed it – even though it’s one of the most fictionalised accounts of the life of Piers I’ve ever read. It strays very far from what we know about Piers’ life and its chronology of events is all over the place, plus there are many fictionalised characters in it.

At the heart of the novel is an ancient blood feud, involving Piers mysterious family. He is descended fro a fictional family called the de Stirlemont, who are pursued by another family, the de Senlos. Piers’ mother manages to flee, is taken in by a peasant couple where she gives birth to Piers and then dies. Realising her identity, they fear for the child and place him in a monastery where is brought up by the monks. Yes, seriously, Piers is a God-fearing boy living in a monastery! Penfold has gone for Piers as being dark-haired and with piercing eyes, who is very pretty and much lusted after by some of the inhabitants of the monastery. He is given a classical education, meets a strange princess called Berengaria and becomes the object of chivalrous love by one of the young squires. Aged 12, Piers suffers a horrendous sexual assault, flees the monastery and meets Aubrey de Grey who is on a mission in France. Piers, having been cloistered in the monastry, is naïve and has been scared off women for life with tales of sin by his tutor Ivor. Aubrey feels compassion for Piers, and takes him to England as his ward. All Piers has with him are some silver coins and a mysterious ring and letter that give clues to his background.

In England, Sir Aubrey arranges for Piers to receive training to be a knight and finds his feeling change towards Piers, and he seduces him. He cannot stand the thought of Piers wanting to win his spurs and does all he can to stop Piers joining him on the battlefield. One day, Piers meets a mysterious youth when he has been swimming in the river – yes, it’s Edward, Prince of Wales (although Piers doesn’t know this), and they are smitten with each other. Even when he finds out who Edward is, he refuses to give him up although he does worry about the king finding out. Naturally, Sir Aubrey is heartbroken.

All this is very different from what we know about Piers’ early life. And Penford continues to deviate from the evidence. There’s no scene with Edward asking his father for Ponthieu, although Piers is banished – for 2 years! On his re-call with Edward as king, he is made Earl of Cornwall and all the nobles – real and fictitious – hate him. Edward is a nervous wreck and can only worry about keeping Piers safe without resorting to violence – something that causes them to argue a lot. There’s no tournament with the nobles at this point. Edward decides to marry Piers to his niece – who happens to be 11 and Piers can hardly agree to it. We never meet Margaret in the novel, Piers never consummates his marriage with her, so they never have their daughter Joan and in fact, her brother Gloucester wants a divorce as the novel moves on.

Piers loathes the idea of Edward getting married – as does Edward himself, feeling there’s no need as he has 2 healthy half-brothers! However, Piers has to suppress his jealousy and ‘allow’ Edward to marry Isabella to try to appease the nobles. Isabella’s portrayal is nightmarish! She is 16, unchaste, and ravishes Edward on their wedding night! Edward has to close his eyes and think of England!

The novel badly loses its way here – with Isabella openly conducting an affair with Thomas of Lancaster! Their first night together is rather funny, and I’ll leave it at that! Isabella joins the nobles to try and depose her husband and set herself up as regent – years before she actually did. Edward suffers countless humiliations at the hands of the rebel lords, argues with Piers who wants to wage war, (and eventually does defeat them in a tournament) and takes to his bed as a gibbering wreck whenever he can’t face ‘the real world’.

If this were a fictitious novel about a fictional period of history, it would be a fair read. It strays so far from what we know, it almost feels like that. The author was from Nottingham, which explains why most of the novel is set there. Maybe it should have been about a 7th century warlord in, erm, Nottingham? The relationship between Piers and Edward is touching in parts – they really do care for each other. Piers is handsome and heroic, but lacks his warrior status to carry out all his threats to wage war on the nobles, and there’s no sign of his wit. By contrast, Edward is not just weak, but very, very weak! To the extent where I wondered what Piers would ever have seen in him. He takes to his bed, is struck literally dumb and has to be dragged out of bed by his loyal friends to act to save Piers. At the conclusion of the novel, Piers cannot take anymore, feeling he and Edward have too much blood on their hands, and with the ancient blood feud rearing it’s head again, takes the decision to sacrifice himself and goes willingly to his death.

An enjoyable read, with a pleasing portrayal of Piers and a very different slant on his story. Read it with a pinch of salt:)

Time for a more light-hearted post. May I present, the A to Z of Piers Gaveston

2009-08-21T12:19:00.000-07:00

A – for Amy, alleged illegitimate daughter of Piers and an unknown mistress.

B – for Blacklow Hill, the site of Piers murder.

C – for Cornwall, Piers’ earldom.

D – tempted to out dog, as in Black dog, but will go for Deddington, where Piers was surprised and taken by Guy, Earl of Warick.

E – who else – but Edward II – either Piers’ adopted brother or lover, whichever interpretation you go for.

F – for forks – how else would Piers eat his pears?

G – obviously Gaveston, so how about Gascony, birthplace of Piers.

H – Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, who deliberated Piers’ fate at Warwick.

I - for Ireland, where Piers served as Edward’s lieutenant.

J – Joan, Piers daughter with his wife Margaret de Clare. Or possibly one of Piers’ greatest loves – jewels!

K – Knaresborough castle, belonging to Piers.

L – as in Langley, one of Edward and Piers’ favourite palaces and site of the priory, the eventual resting place of Piers.

M – Margaret de Clare, wife of Piers and niece of Edward II.

N – for Piers ‘insulting’ nicknames for the nobility. Lancaster the fiddler, Lincoln, Burst Belly and not forgetting the Black dog of Arden, Warwick.

O – those awful Ordinances!

P – Perrot – Edward’s pet name for Piers.

Q – how about as in Queen? For Isabella. Of whom Piers may have said ‘who?’

R – as in Richmond, Earl of, whom Piers once professed to lova above all others.

S – for Scarborough, the castle at which Piers surrounded, and where his headless ghost is said to wander.

T – tournaments, which Piers was partial to – he ‘deserted’ Edward Ist’s Scottish campaign for tournaments in France.

U – hmm, this is tricky – how about ‘unsuitable’ – what many thought of Piers as a companion for Prince Edward.

V – for the Vita Edwardi Secundi, one of the main sources for information on Piers.

W – is for Wallingford, where Piers humiliated the nobility at his own tournament.

X – xenophobia – was one of the reasons for hatred of Piers because he was foreign?

Y – York – where Edward fled to try and raise an army to protect Piers.

Z – ok, I admit to scraping the barrel here – zany, a suitable adjective to describe Piers’ humour and wit?

Aftermath of Piers' death

2009-06-19T12:53:00.000-07:00

Edward’s re-action to Piers’ death was one of shock at first – according to the Vita, he burst forth with –

"By God’s soul, he acted as a fool. If he had taken my advice he would never have fallen into the hands of the earls. This is what I always told him not to do. For I guessed that what has now happened would occur. What was he doing with the earl of Warwick, who was known never to have liked him? I knew for certain that if the earl caught him, Piers would never escape from his hands."

Not exactly what one would expect Edward to say about his ‘beloved brother’ – but the shock and grief he must have felt probably made him lose control of his emotions. The Vita goes on to add “But I am certain the king grieved for Piers as a father grieves for his son. For the greater the love, the greater the sorrow." His actions following Piers’ death prove this. Piers had died excommunicate and as such could not be buried in consecrated ground. His body was dressed in cloth of gold and preserved with balsam and spices. Edward ordered Thomas de London and Philip de Eyndon to watch over Piers’ body whilst he ordered prayers to be said for Piers’ soul. He also appealed to the pope to repeal the act of excommunication removed from Piers, in which he was successful. Yet still he could not bury Piers until January, 1315, when a lavish funeral ceremony was carried out by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Walter Reynolds. The earls of Pembroke and Norfolk attended. In he years between the death and burial of Piers, Edward paid the considerable sum of over £600 caring for the body and soul of Piers. Edward never forgot Piers – continuing to pay for prayers for Piers’ soul and sending gifts of remembrance to his tomb, especially on the anniversary of his death. Hamilton says of him,

‘Regardless of his many failures as a Ruler, Edward may be commended for his sense of loyalty, a constancy clearly demonstrated in his devotion to Gaveston’s memory’.

Edward also made provision for the family of Piers and swore revenge on those who had murdered him. I will deal with these areas in a later post.

Whatever anyone may have thought of Piers, he didn’t deserve to be murdered on Blacklow Hill. Arrogance, favour from the king and witty insults were not crimes. The nobles did not give Piers a fair trial – they condemn themselves by their cowardly actions – Warwick in particular, ordering him to Blacklow Hill, away from his lands, and hiding in his castle, awaiting the wrath of the king.

Sources – ‘Piers Gaveston, Edward II’s Adoptive Brother’ by Pierre Chaplain

‘Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307 – 13 12’ by J. S. Hamilton

Revenge of the nobles

2009-06-18T12:41:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered if Piers thought his fate was sealed when Warwick captured him. Edward II’s re-action to Piers’ murder was one of shock and anger. I find his re-action particularly telling in that he initially blamed Piers for falling specifically into the clutches of Warwick, as though he was the magnate Piers was most in danger of. Yet Warwick did not immediately carry out the death of Piers. He waited 9 days. Had he acted on his own initiative? Or was there a plot between the barons? In my opinion, Warwick was waiting to hear from the other powerful barons to see if they could all agree on a plan of action. Lancaster, Hereford and Arundel, along wit some of the lesser nobles, made their way to Warwick. Pembroke was frantically trying to assert his right to have Piers back in his custody. He had sworn on his honour to protect Piers, pledging his lands. He appealed to the earl of Gloucester, Piers’ brother-in-law, to intercede. Gloucester could only shrug off Pembroke’s concerns, informing him Warwick had acted with the agreement of the other nobles, and Pembroke’s lands were lost. Pembroke appealed to the University of Oxford, but received no support. If Pembroke had been involved in the plot from the outset, surely he would not have pledged his lands and fought hard to recover the custody of Piers? His honour was at stake.

The barons had Piers in their power – and all that they had previously threatened was within their power. Yet still they seem to have agonised over what to do. It seems likely that Warwick and Lancaster sat in judgment on Piers, whilst two royal justices, William Inge and Henry Spigurnel, were asked to examine the case. The Ordinances had not been repealed in Warwickshire – as Hamilton points out, this was very convenient for the nobles. Thus Piers was sentenced to death. Still the nobles were uneasy and did their best to assure one another of their loyalty. Hereford was guaranteed in writing that he would suffer no personal losses for his role in Piers’ murder. They surely knew what Edward’s re-action would be.

The Vita says that Piers’ was told the news the morning of June 19th that he was to die. Piers’ re-action was a heartfelt lament – ‘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 had 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 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.’

This paints Piers as realising all that he ever had or enjoyed in the past, his rise and fall, was through patronage, and now there was nothing to save him. He realises his pride and arrogance – and how grateful barons must have been to hear him admit it – which suggests to me, he never said it. He surely would not have given ‘the fiddler’ and the ‘black dog of Arden’ the satisfaction. No mention of Piers begging for mercy is mentioned – probably because he knew he would receive none. He must surely have known from his ‘trial’ that he could expect none. One chronicle does mention his vanity – claiming he was too handsome to have his head cut off. This sounds to me more like Piers’ wit, and was said ‘tongue in cheek’.

Piers was led out of Warwick castle and taken along the road to Kenilworth. It seems the ‘Black dog’ was worried – he didn’t want Piers blood shed on his land. Piers was marched out of Warwick’s lands, and as soon as he set foot in Lancaster’s, he was taken to Blacklow Hill. Warwick didn’t even accompany him. Was this a twinge of conscience? Or fear for what he had done? The Vita says Lancaster decided to take control because of his higher birth and he was more powerful. Lancaster handed him over to two Welshmen – ‘one of whom ran him through he body and the other cut off his head’.

Once Piers had been killed, his head and body were abandoned. No-one thought to put his remains on display – an example of the death of a traitor. According to one chronicle, the Annales Londonienses, some shoemakers found the body and placed it on a ladder, and brought it back to Warwick castle. Warwick refused point blank to receive the body, ordering the shoemakers to take it from his lands. This the shoemakers did, and a group of Dominican friars recovered the head and body, which were ‘re-united’ – the head was stitched back to the body. The friars then took the body back to the Dominican house in Langley.

Disaster at Deddington

2009-06-15T12:20:00.000-07:00

Once Piers returned, both Edward and Piers decided to make a stand against the barons. On March 31st, Piers was made custodian of Scarborough and Carlise castles and it appears he asked Edward to make him keeper of Nottingham Castle. On April 4th, Piers swore a solemn oath – that he would never relinquish control of Scarborough castle to no one except Edward – except if Edward himself were a prisoner. The next day, Edward sent letters to Gascon leaders, commanding them to raise troops. There was a delay in their plans whilst Edward and Piers were at Newcastle – and it seems it was due to Piers suffering some sort of illness. A doctor, Master William de Burntoft, was paid £6 13 s 4d, along with Robert de Birmingham, a monk from Tynemouth. During this time, armies led by Lancaster, Percy and Clifford caused Edward and Piers to flee suddenly to Scarborough castle. That they left in such a hurry is evidenced by what they left behind (I’ll save that for future post).

What happened next was catastrophic, with the benefit of hindsight. Leaving Piers at Scarborough, with orders to hold the castle, Edward left for Knaresborough and then York to try and raise troops. Lancaster seized his chance, and placed his army between Edward and Piers. Lancaster laid siege from about a week to ten days. Edward ordered the barons to desist, but they took no notice. Whether Piers was disheartened, running out of supplies, or possibly even sick again, he arranged to surrender. Despite his surrender, Piers had actually achieved fairly good terms. He was to surrender to the earl of Pembroke who would take Piers to St Mary’s Abbey in York, where Edward and the Earl of Lancaster would negotiate. If they could not reach terms by August 1st, Piers would be returned to Scarborough Castle. Pembroke, along with Warenne and Percy, swore an oath to guarantee Piers’ safety until then. In my opinion, Piers must have been relieved to be in the custody of someone like Pembroke, rather than Lancaster or Warwick. Piers had to promise not to try and persuade the king to change anything in the agreement.

Various sources claim Pembroke had accepted a bribe to protect Piers, whilst he planned to appeal to the Pope and Phillip of France. Edward met with Pembroke, Warenne and Percy in York on May 26th. Was Piers with them? Did Edward and Piers meet for one last time? There is no record of this. Pembroke made the decision to take Piers South, possibly to further protect him. On June 9th, the party reached Deddington. It seems Pembroke decided to leave his prisoner here at the rectory so that he could visit his wife in nearby Bampton. Piers was left with only a few of the Earl’s retainers. Did Pembroke deliberately leave Piers here, vulnerable, ready for the Earl of Warwick to strike? Or had Warwick been tailing them, waiting for his chance? The latter seems more likely. While Pembroke was absent, visiting his wife, Warwick and his followers entered the courtyard early in the morning. The Vita quotes him as shouting out ‘Arise traitor, thou art taken’. One can only imagine the horror Piers must have felt, seeing Warwick in the courtyard below. The Vita says he dressed quickly and came downstairs, where he was treated ‘not as an earl, but as a thief; and he who used to ride on a palfrey is now forced to go on foot’.

Warwick must have realised Piers travelling on foot would slow down his party, and once out of the village he ordered Piers to be placed on an old nag. Along the route, he was jeered as he was taken to Warwick’s castle. ‘He whom Piers called Warwick the Dog has now bound Piers with chains’.

Sources – ‘Piers Gaveston, Edward II’s Adoptive Brother’ by Pierre Chaplain

‘Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307 – 13 12’ by J. S. Hamilton

The events of June, 1312

2009-06-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

Pressures of work have overtaken me lately, so that I’ve neglected Piers. However, I cannot let the month of June go by without posting about Piers' murder on Blacklow Hill.

Piers had first been exiled by Edward Ist, and recalled by his son when he became king. Piers was again exiled, this time to Ireland for bout a year, before Edward recalled him yet again. Edward had worked hard for Piers to be allowed to return, and within weeks of his arrival back in England, he regained his former titles and lands. The Vita records ‘Once he had been reinstated, his behaviour went from bad to worse. He showed his content for the barons by giving them vile nicknames. He took offices and dignities from others to bestow them on those close to him. The magnates of the land began to resent this, particularly the earl of Lancaster, because one of his retainers had been removed from office at the instigation of Piers’. In this particular post, I won’t discuss the charges of Piers taking offices etc. His so-called insulting nicknames may seem tame and childish in today’s society, but at the time, they infuriated the barons. Piers attacked their physical features, lineage and showed a real lack of respect. Why he chose to do this, we simply don’t know. It may have been a childish response to their lack of respect for him, possibly mocking his low birth. It my have been a way to entertain himself and Edward, and also to show them he wasn’t afraid of them. Lancaster was known as ‘the churl’ or ‘the fiddler’, mocking his lineage. Lincoln was ‘burst belly’, for obvious reasons. Pembroke was ‘Joseph the Jew’ and Warwick was ‘the dog of Arden’. The fact that these nicknames were recorded and seen as a genuine insult to the barons show how they must have wounded and stung them.

Armed with their evidence, the barons once again demanded that Piers be banished. Piers was ordered to leave from Dover by November 1st 1311. He was forbidden to take refuge in any of the king’s lands. England, Ireland, Wales, Ponthieu and Gascony were all forbidden to him. If Piers remained after November 1st in any of these lands, he was to be treated as the king’s enemy and to be arrested and punished.
Typically of Piers, he actually sailed 2 days later, and from the Thames. There is no way of knowing where Piers sailed to, but Flanders has been identified as a possibility. We also don’t know the intentions of Piers and Edward – though in my opinion, neither would have seen it as a permanent exile.

The Annales Paulini states Piers spent his exile in Flanders and returned to England shortly around Christmas. There seems to be much speculation as to how long he left England for, or if indeed, he ever did. I shall save this speculation for another post. Why did Piers return? He may not have taken the threat by the barons seriously, placing his faith in Edward. Perhaps Edward recalled almost immediately. And of course, his wife Margaret was expecting their first child. Piers would surely have wanted to be present at the birth. The canon of Bridlington records ‘Not long after Epiphany, he arrived, in the king’s company, in York, where the countess, his wife, gave birth to a daughter, for which he stayed there for some time’.

Piers Chaplais argues that Piers had come back for the birth of his daughter and no other reason, and would have surely headed back to his exile. He wasn’t defying the barons – it was simply a personal matter. And if this were indeed true, it makes his capture and murder poignant – well, it does for me.

I want to meet the anniversary of Piers’ death, and this means I won’t have time to go into detail of Edward and Piers ‘abandoning’ Isabella at Tynemouth and the siege at Scarborough. Those events will keep for another post. I will move on to the events at Deddington.

Sources – ‘Piers Gaveston, Edward II’s Adoptive Brother’ by Pierre Chaplain

‘Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307 – 13 12’ by J. S. Hamilton

apologies for Tamise

2009-04-24T11:42:00.000-07:00

I'm so sorry Tamise, only just picked up your message - re Leanda de Lisle's book 'The Sisters who would be Queen'. I've missed the question deadline, but hope this makes up for it in some way.

I read so many history books, with the Tudor period being amongst my favourites, and I've been thnking of expanding Piers' blog to include reviews of any history books. I thoroughly enjoyed Leanda de Lisle's books on the Grey sisters. She wrote about Jane Grey from the point of view of Jane being the Protestant queen who would preserve the 'true religion' - and not, as she rightly criticised past bios as the child-victim pawn of others. Jane was manipulated into a position by Northumberland to satisfy his own ambition, but Jane, and many others, for example Cranmer, believed it her duty to God to accept the crown.

I knew a little of the history of the other Grey sisters - Katherine and Mary. I was riveted by de Lisle's research into Katherine's marriage and her fate, and likewise with Mary's life. I have read many times of the suffering of Elizabeth during her sister's reign, and yet Elizabeth meted out the very same treatment to her Grey cousins. The book brought home the predicament Elizabeth faced - if she did not marry and beget an heir, she faced a very real threat from her Grey cousins - particularly Katherine, who as a protestant had made a good match - and a love match at that - and produced 2 male heirs. Katherine's fate proved tragic. I was left hoping that Mary was able to find some sort of happiness when she was relased from prison to her small household.

A riveting read that shows the tragedy of all three Grey sisters.

Thank you Alianore

2009-03-29T12:06:00.001-07:00

for your award!

Another very 1970’s Gaveston novel

2009-03-08T12:21:00.000-07:00

After reviewing ‘Where Nobles Tread’, in which Piers was portrayed in a very 1970’s, I decided to continue in that mode for my next review – Sandra Wilson’s ‘Alice’. The cover is better than that for ‘Nobles’. We have our heroine, ‘Alice’, looking a bit like Sophia Loren, to me. Piers is extremely macho on this cover – shirt open to reveal a very Tom Jones-like hairy chest. He’s also dark-haired in this novel. At the bottom of the picture is a very Tudor-looking executioner and a dejected Piers, awaiting his fate.

Once again, this novel is littered with clichés from the 1970’s. Piers and Alice often feel the ‘warmth’ coming from each other. And they seem to ‘want’ each pretty regularly. Of course, Alice does her best to resist Piers, not wanting to be one of his conquests – and Piers is genuinely in love with her. His wife does put in an appearance in this novel, but Piers has lost his heart to Alice. Piers is handsome, confident and powerful. Oh, and he’s completely heterosexual. He tells Alice has only shared the king’s bed out of friendship. Once again, Edward is seen as weak, easily led, frequently drunk, and it’s Piers who tries to keep him away from the boys he lusts after. How noble, eh? Indeed, he rounds on the king ‘like a tiger’ after catching him with a naked youth! This Piers also practices the ‘old religion’, and we get the tale of his mother being burned as a witch.

Piers meets his fate being very brave, telling Alice not to cry, as he won’t be able to prepare himself for fretting about her tears. Of course, as he is led away, Alice just has to swoon. The rest of the novel is taken up with an unsavoury episode between the Earl of Warwick and Alice, and she takes full revenge on him but poisoning him.

This is a typical ‘romantic novel’, full of historical accuracies and clichés, but once again, a novel I would have loved when I was about 14. Interestingly, at the end of the novel is this inscription –

‘Soon after Gaveston’s execution the earl of Warwick died mysteriously; it has been suggested he was poisoned by Gaveston’s mistress’.

This snippet comes from the ‘Official Guide to Warwick Castle’. Piers did have a mistress at one time – there is a record of an illegitimate daughter. But who the lady was, we don’t know – and there is no evidence Warwick was poisoned. If he was, I’d rather like it to have been Edward II himself- although a public execution would have been much more to my liking!

Piers in fiction

2009-02-28T08:29:00.000-08:00

Finally got around to including a review on fictional Piers Gaveston. Bit surprised at my first choice, but as I’ve just finished reading it, and enjoyed the interpretation, somewhat, I’ve settled on ‘Where Nobles Tread’ by Janet Kilbourne, a novel published in the early 1970’s. You can tell it’s from the 1970’s, just by it’s cover – featuring a colourful picture of the heroine, Eleanor Stanton – an entirely fictional character – and a man in the background who is either Piers or one William Darcy, as both figure equally in the novel. If it is meant to be Piers, he isn’t very well dressed – as inside his clothes are always described as beautiful and richly embroidered and decorated. The man on the cover is in a rather dull green – dull green would never do for Piers!

Piers is dark-haired in this novel, with piercing blue eyes. There are plenty of references to his good looks, and dark hair, and those piercing blue eyes are much in evidence. The author tends to use plenty of ‘romantic’ 1970’s clichés in her descriptions. Piers’ blue eyes are always raking over everyone at court – and particularly the ladies, whom he seems to ‘strip naked’ with those raking eyes. For the men, they tend to be full of mockery. Clearly this is Kilbourne’s favourite adjective for Piers – every time he appears in the novel, he’s always being ‘mocking’ – and it doesn’t matter what his mood is – whether he’s bating the nobles, trying to seduce Eleanor, fighting with William Darcy or drinking with the king, he’s always ‘mocking’.

Piers is very much a 1970’s man as well. He has his shirt and doublet open, often slashed to the waist to show off his manly chest – and he also wears that 1970’s classic – a medallion! Yes, Piers is a medallion man! Reminded me of Tom Jones or Oliver Tobias (if you know the latter, you remember the 1970’s well! :> ). Naturally, he constantly fiddles with the medallion, and poor Eleanor is practically swooning when he does it.

As for the plot – well, it concerns Eleanor Stanton, a country baron’s daughter, who has come to court to attend Queen Isabella. She makes friends with a French girl Jeanne, who fills her in on all the court gossip. Piers is the no.1 topic of conversation – plenty of swooning adjectives, mockery, and yes, Jeanne identifies him as the King’s lover but with a lust for the ladies. Edward doesn’t appear to mind, as Piers tires of them rather quickly and only the king holds his attention. Naturally, Isabella hates him. Then there is Sir William Darcy, a mysterious knight who, although he doesn’t know Eleanor, has fallen in love with her and wants to protect her from the carnal Piers. Eleanor has other ideas – and decides it would be rather useful for her to become Piers’ mistress so she can reap the rewards. She realises this is rather sinful, but can’t help herself. Initially, she decides she will hate Piers, attract him by rebuffing him (of course, Piers has raked her already an decided she’s his next conquest) in order to make him desire her more and in that way, hold his attention. However, she can’t help falling in love with Piers, and embarks on a love affair with him. Piers can read her character well, and knows she is looking to advance herself, and keeps telling her how awful he is and what a bad influence he is on the king and kingdom, all with mockery and thoroughly enjoying himself. All the time, William Darcy smoulders with indignation.

Won’t give away the ending for Eleanor, but poor Piers meets his fate. We only hear about it second hand, when it is reported to the king. We have Piers leaving court with a sense of doom, but for no particular reason, and then hearing he’s been murdered with a rusty sword and that it was painful, taking several attempts – damn that rusty sword:> Naturally, Eleanor faints.

As much as I may display some of Piers mockery, I actually liked the portrayal of Piers. This Piers has charisma, he holds the attention of all at court, and there’s no doubt who rules this court. He dominates the novel whenever he appears. He may be promiscuous with the ladies, but the love between him and Edward appears to be genuine. He knows he’s a ‘bad boy’ and a bad influence on the king, but he doesn’t think much of the morals of anyone else, and maybe part of the charm of this fictional Piers is his honesty. He has nothing but contempt for Lancaster, Warwick and Isabella, realising they seek to rule. It’s a case of him and Edward against the world.

The portrayal of Edward is disappointing. The relationship between him and Piers seems genuine and touching. However, Edward is seen as an indolent, childlike, weak king. He always seems to be drinking, and when he can’t have Piers, whom he almost seems to worship, he’s surrounded by young boys fawning all over him. Lancaster and Warwick talk to him as if he were a naughty, peevish child whom they can bully easily. Only when Piers is around to protect him, can Edward stand up to them – and yet he tells Piers he is his protector and must stay at court to be safe. There’s no sign of that terrible Plantagenet temper. After Piers’ death, Edward seems to accept that Lancaster and Warwick rule the kingdom now, and he must do their bidding. There’s no sign of any fightback by him. Isabella is equally contemptuous to him – getting pregnant by him but enjoying the young knights of the court. I would have liked to have read a scene between Edward and Eleanor, but they never exchange a word.

As for historical accuracy – well, allowing for interpretation of character – there is no sign of Piers’ wife Margaret, banishment by the nobles, sieges at Tyneside, Scarborough etc.

If you can stand the clichés, - ladies swooning, fainting, scorching tears running down cheeks, hearts burning with desire – this novel is definitely worth a read.

A little more on my visit to Caerphilly Castle

2009-02-22T12:20:00.000-08:00

Caerphilly castle currently has an exhibition running on the building of the castle and two historical people linked to the castle. One is Llywelyn Bren, the other Edward II.

After the death of Gilbert de Clare at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, his lands were divided between his 3 sisters. Hugh Despencer the younger, was married to Eleanor de Clare, the eldest sister and niece of Edward II. He was also the ‘favourite’ of Edward II. He chose the largest portion of the de Clare lands, the lordship of Glamorgan, which included the castles of Caerphilly and Cardiff. The current custodians of Caerphilly castle, CADW, are in no doubt of his greed, ambition and treachery. Llywelyn Bren had led a revolt in 1316 and attacked Caerphilly castle. The revolt spread throughout Glamorgan. A royal army was assembled and sent to quell the revolt. Llywelyn surrendered, and asked for royal mercy. He was sent to the Tower of London. However, in 1318, in an act of ‘wanton cruelty’, Despencer had him brought to Cardiff, where he was hanged, beheaded and quartered. Llywelyn’s story is told with sympathy and compassion. Despencer is definitely the ‘bully boy’. Llyeleyn’s body was buried in Greyfriars church in Cardiff, which no longer exists – yes, another victim of the Reformation. A tower block currently stands on the site.

The second history story centres on Edward II, and obviously involves Despencer again. When the castle’s restoration was begun, a carved head was found, and identified as that of Edward II. Despencer spent a lot of time and money on Caerphilly, and the great hall’s supporting pillars had the heads of the Despencer family and the king carved into them. The head is no longer at the castle – probably kept in Cardiff museum. Edward fled with Despencer, and his treasure, to Caerphilly castle when his estranged Queen, Isabella, and her favourite, Mortimer, staged an invasion to seize the crown for Prince Edward. They stayed a few nights at Caerphilly, from October 29th until November 2nd, before fleeing to the Cistercian abbey at Neath. Edward took some of the treasure with him and hurriedly hid it, so the story goes, throughout the abbey. Edward and Despencer then fled the abbey and were then captured near Llantrisant.

The inventory taken in 1327 at Caerphilly makes fascinating reading. Amongst the arms found there were 1,130 crossbows fitted with hedgehog quills! £13,000 was found packed into 26 barrels, and a further £1,000 was found in a barrel belonging to Despencer. The king’s personal belongings included his armour, his bed, a mattress, canopy and curtains, two sheets, four pillows, a silk coverlet, a red dressing-gown, doeskin gauntlets and a black cap decorated with butterflies and pearls. Edward’s story concludes with him being dismissed as weak and foolish, and being murdered ‘horribly’ at Berkley castle. At one pint in the commentary, his wife changes from Isabella to Eleanor!

Stories of Edward II’s treasure hidden around Neath are part of local legend. Coins have been found hidden around the Abbey, dating from Edward II. Being somewhat of a local myself, I’ve grown up with stories of ‘the English king’s treasure’ being hidden around Neath. Parts of the Abbey remain in various decayed states, and the town has grown up around it. One interesting fact is the story of Edward and Isabella’s ‘wedding certificate’ turning up in the 19th century. A doctor was called out to treat a farmer’s wife, and the farmer, unable to pay the doctor, gave him the certificate which had been in his family ‘for years’. He couldn’t read it, had no idea what it was, but felt it may be worth something!

Visiting Caerphilly Castle

2009-02-21T12:22:00.001-08:00

Nothing to do with Piers, really, but this week I visted the magnificent castle at Caerphilly. It's the largest ruined castle in Wales, and was built not by the royal family, but by the de Clare family, which makes it even more unique. The de Clare family gained the lordship of Glamorgan in 1217. The de Clares were confronted with petty revolts, and to take control of Glamorgan, they built the castle at Caerphilly. The castle fell into the hands of Hugh Despencer, after the death of Gilbert de Clare at Bannockburn in 1314. Despencer was married to Gilbert's elder sister, Eleanor. Piers had been married to Gilbert's second sister, Margaret.

Here are some of the pictures I took. It was cold, but thankfully dry. I will add a little more about Despencer's time at Caerphilly castle next week.

Check out Alianore's latest blog on Edward II

2009-02-10T13:32:00.001-08:00

There's a well re-searched article on Piers with lots of fascinating facts! Check out the link below!

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2009/02/nineteen-things-you-never-knew-about.html

Piers' marriage

2009-01-11T12:02:00.000-08:00

Almost as soon as Edward II recalled Piers Gaveston, he began to arrange a marriage for him. Piers’ bride was Margaret de Clare, Edward’s niece. Margaret was the daughter of Edward’s sister, Joan of Acre, from her marriage to Gilbert de Clare, 3rd Earl of Gloucester. Her elder sister Eleanor was married to Hugh Despencer, the Younger. The date of the wedding was November 1st, 1307 – just a few days after the funeral of Edward Ist. The timing may have offended the nobility – but they would doubtless have been horrified that the grand-daughter of the old king was marrying the king’s favourite – someone without royal blood, and worse, a foreigner. With her royal connections, Margaret would have been a ‘prize bride’, much sought after. According to the chronicler of theVita Edwardi Secundi the marriage was arranged by the King "to strengthen Piers and surround him with friends."

The true nature of the relationship between Edward and Piers will probably never been known. That Edward loved Piers is undoubtedly true – but the nature of the love is unknown. The historian, J. S. Hamilton, believes the marriage between Piers and Margaret was arranged by Edward as part of his desire to bring Piers into his family and strengthen their bond. Hamilton put forward the theory that Edward and Piers had made a bond to be ‘blood brothers’, with Piers being his adopted brother. Marriage to Margaret would bring Piers officially into the royal family. Piers and Margaret would go on to produce a daughter, Joan. Hamilton’s interpretation, and with the marriage producing a daughter, has been seen as evidence that Edward and Piers were not lovers. However, both Edward and Piers would have known what society would expect them – certainly Edward had been raised to do his royal duty – to marry and provide the county with an heir and secure the future of the Plantagenet dynasty. His private feelings, whatever they were, would not have come into it. As for Piers, Edward had already showered expensive gifts upon him and made him Earl of Cornwall – a royal bride would be ‘the icing on the cake’, as it were. Piers, as Earl of Cornwall, would want to establish his own dynasty. If the two men were lovers, Edward would have felt some satisfaction that he had control over who Piers would marry.

Margaret would have been around 13 or 14 at the time of her wedding. At such a tender age, Edward would not have seen Margaret as a threat to his relationship to Piers. It s possible that Edward and Piers may have discussed their marriages whilst Edward Ist was still alive – none of us know the plans they may have made when Edward would become king. It is unlikely Margaret would have been consulted about her marriage – she would not have expected to be, and whatever the nature of the relationship between her uncle and her husband, she would have obeyed her uncle’s command. Maybe Margaret herself would not have been unhappy with her choice of bridegroom. Piers was reckoned to be handsome, well-mannered, elegant and the favourite of the king. He may have lacked a noble ancestry, but he had been made Earl of Cornwall, and Margaret would be a countess – higher in status than her elder sister. Margaret and her husband should have enjoyed a littering career at court.

The wedding took place at Berkhamsted Castle, and Edward was once again generous. The couple were given gifts of money and jewels. The nobles must have been seething with envy that the ‘upstart’ Gascon was marrying into the royal family.

New Year Resolutions

2009-01-04T12:30:00.000-08:00

Having read the amusing New year Resolution's on Susan's blog, I'm sure Piers would have had no intention of ever making any, and if he did, with the express purpose of breaking them. Same with Edward II - if the Ordinances couldn't keep them in line, new year resolutions had no chance.

Happy New Year to all!

the 12 days of Christmas - according to Piers!

2008-12-24T06:15:00.000-08:00

Inspired by some fun on Alianore’s brilliant Edward II forum – here is Piers’ favourite carol –

On the first day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
a gold cup, enamelled with jewels (once belonged to his mother, apparently)

On the second day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
a buckle of gold with two emeralds, two rubies, two sapphires and eleven pearls, with a cameo in the middle, (belonged to some German queen, I believe).

On the third day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
sixty-three horses – and a rather splendid palfrey

On the fourth day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
an enamelled silver mirror – never get tired of using it.

On the fifth day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
A £1,000 ruby set in gold - I do like rubies.

On the sixth day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
a gold crown encrusted with jewels – yes, my very own crown!

On the seventh day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
a gold ring with a sapphire – matches nicely with the ruby.

On the eighth day of Christmas Edward gave to me………
silver ship with four gold oars – not quite sure why to put this.

On the ninth day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
The Earldom of Cornwall and a marriage to his niece – who is rather pretty – can’t see him topping that.

On the tenth day of Christmas Edward gave to me……….
Wow – with the title, comes the Castle of Tintagel!

On the eleventh day of Christmas Edward gave to me………
100 silver shields, marked with an eagle, and a suit of armour – must hold another tournament soon to put those barons in their place – the dust!

On the twelfth day of Christmas Edward gave to me………..
a gold ring containing a great ruby. The ruby is called La Cerise – ‘the cherry’ – you can guess the size of it!

Alas, I don’t have much wealth to give Edward a present – but myself :) He seems happy with that – plus, he can share my silver forks for eating pears whenever he likes.

New cover for 'Confessions'

2008-12-14T13:11:00.001-08:00

My least fav fictional account of Piers Gaveston, but at least it now has a more appropriate cover. I will hopefully get around to posting my reviews of Piers in fiction soon.

New book on the Princes of Wales

2008-12-13T08:51:00.000-08:00

Well, it's new for me. It's by the eminent historian David Loades. It's the history of the princes of Wales, and starts obviously with Edward of Caernavon. Of course, I have focused on the Piers bits:)

I'm happy with Loades' interpretation. He doesn't focus too much on whether the relationship between Edward and Piers was a homosexual one, stating that both men married and had children. He says he thinks Edward Ist probably did think it was a homosexual relationship, and was alarmed - mainly because of the influence Piers would have.

Loades' makes the point that Edward was criticised for mixing with lowborn people and their pursuits - and then points out that Piers was very far from mixing with such company and their pursuits! Indeed, Piers was complimented on his courteous manners. So much for Piers' influence, eh? Although, I'm sure Piers just let Edward enjoy doing hat he wanted - and maybe that explains Edward's attachment to him. I just cannot imagine Piers thatching a roof!

I particularly like Loades' interpretation of Piers' murder. He doesn't go into great detail. He says Piers surrendered Scarborough castle with a guarantee of his safety, and was then seized and murdered on his way south. No talk of a trial or execution - Loades tells it how it was!

Ponthieu for Piers.......

2008-12-01T11:51:00.000-08:00

Sorry to have neglected Piers for quite some time. Heavy workload is to blame. In this part of the blog, I shall look at the events leading up to Piers' first exile.

Piers had been in the service of Prince Edward since 1300 and had found favour. Everyone in the Prince’s service must have known how high Piers had risen, and indeed the king himself. It has been previously noted how King Edward 1st had hoped that Piers would be a good role model for the Prince. The king considered Piers to be of good manners and knew of his experience on the battlefield. However, it seems the king became concerned about the rise of Piers in 1305, because he removed Piers and Gilbert de Clare from the Prince’s household. Piers cannot have helped his cause when, in 1306, along with other members of the Prince’s household, he ‘deserted’ the Scottish campaign, ‘abandoning’ the King and Prince. Piers was amongst 22 knights who deserted. Gilbert de Clare and Roger Mortimer were part of the group. Why had they deserted? According to the sheriffs of London’s records, the knights ‘have crossed to foreign parts for a tournament…..without licence, while the king is engaged in the war of Scotland’. (Calendar of Fine Rolls). King Edward was furious, and ordered the lands of the knights were seized, they were to be arrested, and were to be treated as traitors.

Although the actions of Piers and the others seem serious, in reality, the campaign in Scotland had reached stalemate, and the young knights had sought the excitement and lure of money to attend a tournament across the channel. Prince Edward apparently knew that Piers and other members of his household had gone to the tournament. The Prince’s step-mother, Queen Margaret, did her best to pour oil on troubled waters, and in January, 1307, the deserters were pardoned. All except for Piers. Not only was he refused a pardon; he was to be sent into exile. So, why wasn’t Piers pardoned? And sent into exile?

It is likely that King Edward recognised how important Piers had become to his son. He had intended Piers to be a good role model for his son, but perhaps the relationship between Piers and the prince had gone too far. One of the chroniclers of the time, Walter of Guisborough, Piers was banished because the prince had asked his father for Ponthieu for Piers. Ponthieu was part of the Prince’s inheritance. Rather than ask his father himself, Prince Edward sent Treasurer William Langton to ask. Piers and the prince has previously been on bad terms with Langton, and I have to wonder whether he was sincere in his quest. Most likely, he probably realised what the king’s reaction would be. Edward Ist was furious. He sent for his own, and has been quoted as shouting 'You wretched son of a whore! Do you want to give away lands now? You who have never gained any? As God lives, if not for fear of breaking up the Kingdom, I would never let you enjoy your inheritance!' The king must have been in such a terrible temper to utter such words – he obviously would not have insulted his wife in such a way otherwise. He then grabbed the prince by his hair, pulling out a handful, pushed his son to the floor, and kicked him.

Why would Edward ask for such a high favour for Piers? And why did his father re-act in such a way? Would Piers have been aware of his influence over the prince, and seek to exploit it by asking for such a prize as Ponthieu? I doubt it. He knew he had angered the King, who had branded him a traitor, and surely to egg on Prince Edward to ask for Ponthieu was asking for trouble. My guess is Prince Edward’s depth of feeling for Piers, and the urge to assert himself at court, led him to think this was a great idea. He would show Piers how much he cared for him, and as he was the Prince, and Ponthieu was his, he could do what he liked with it. For the King, already concerned about the prince’s close relationship, it was the final straw. Parliament was summoned, and both Edward and Piers were forced to swear on the Host and other relics that they would never see each other again unless they had permission. It must have been humiliating for both young men. The fact that the king made them swear such an oath, is, in my opinion, evidence at how concerned he was regarding the friendship between them. If he thought the prince had developed a ‘crush’ on Piers, he must have become alarmed the crush had developed into something stronger.

The king’s anger seems to have been directed more at the Prince than Piers. Piers was exiled to Gascony, given a pension, plus was given time to leave England. The prince lavished gifts of tapestries, clothes and money upon Piers for his exile. Undoubtedly, both men must have been upset, even distraught, at being forced apart. Knowing the king’s health as deterioating, I wonder if, when they parted, they were already making plans for Piers return. Or did Piers think, once out of sight, he would be out of mind? Maybe Prince Edward even had such thoughts. And King Edward was certainly hoping so.

courtesy of Lady D.......

2008-11-10T12:00:00.000-08:00

Ten Top Trivia Tips about Piers gaveston!

The porpoise is second to piers gaveston as the most intelligent animal on the planet.
If you blow out all the candles on piers gaveston with one breath, your wish will come true.
There is no lead in a lead pencil - it is simply a stick of graphite mixed with piers gaveston and water!
The canonical hours of the Christian church are matins, lauds, prime, terce, sext, none, piers gaveston and compline.
It takes 17 muscles to smile, and 43 to frown at piers gaveston.
If you don't get out of bed on the same side you got in, you will have piers gaveston for the rest of the day!
Piers gaveston is the world's largest rodent.
Piers gaveston can taste with his feet.
The Aztec Indians of Mexico believed piers gaveston would protect them from physical harm, and so warriors used him to decorate their battle shields.
Without piers gaveston, we would have to pollinate apple trees by hand.>

Russell's other claim to fame

2008-10-29T10:14:00.000-07:00

Russell Brand has also confessed to being a sex addict, and been voted by the Sun 'Sh*gger of the Year'. I guess only Ed could comment on that comparison. Here is the lovely Russell for those who don't know him.

Piers Gaveston – the Russell Brand of his day?

2008-10-29T10:05:00.000-07:00

Once again, that modern day outrageous dandy, Russell Brand, is in the news. This time, the object of his sharp, and insulting, some might say, wit, is ‘Manuel’s grand-daughter’ – i.e., the actor Andrew Sachs' grand-daughter, with whom Brand alleges he slept with and left offensive messages informing the actor Sachs of this on his answering machine. Sachs is best remembered for playing Manuel in Fawlty Towers. Said granddaughter is a member of the dance troupe ‘The Satanic Sluts’. The BBC has been inundated with complaints, with demands for Brand – and his co-host for that show, Jonathan Ross, to be sacked, questions have been asked by all political parties and even parliament has raised the issue, culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown having his say. Russell has been splashed all over the newspapers, tabloids and broadsheets, all vilifying him for his insulting behaviour.

And all this has put me in mind of perhaps the 14th century Russell Brand – Piers Gaveston. Yes, really. If Piers were around today, I could certainly see him wearing skin-tight leather trousers, with wild hair and dripping jewellery – who knows, maybe he did in the 14th century? And all those accusations of sorcery and witchcraft – maybe he had his own Satanic Sluts? And as for insults, well, he would make Brand look like a beginner. Brand may have attacked George Bush, Manual’s grand-daughter and the Jonas brothers – but Piers went for the jugular – The Fiddler/or Churl, (Duke of Lancaster), the Black Hound of Arden (Earl of Warwick) and Joseph the Jew (Earl of Pembroke) just to name some. Brand would have to insult the whole cabinet and be in fear of pain of death to even try and compete.

Brand merely confined his insults to verbal, but Piers went one better – holding a tournament at Wallingford, inviting all the magnates and grinding them into the dust. Throw in taking pride of place at the King’s coronation and Brand pales into significance.

Thankfully for Russell, I can’t see him being forced into exile or being marched to Blacklow Hill in a covet operation to be murdered.

More thoughts on the relationship between Piers Gaveston and Edward II.

2008-09-22T11:49:00.000-07:00

Before reading this part of the blog, you may wish to read a full narrative of the life of Piers. You can find an excellent one on Alianore’s Edward II blog.

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2007/02/notorious-royal-favourite-piers.html

I intend to comment on events/people in the life of Piers' in later posts.

If you ever read a book or article about Edward and Piers, there is one quote sure to appear –

"I do not remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus. But we do not read that they were immoderate. Our King, however, was incapable of moderate favour, and on account of Piers was said to forget himself, and so Piers was accounted a sorcerer." (Vita Edwardi Secundi)

Both the relationships between the Biblical Jonathan and David and the classical Achilles and Patroclus have been viewed as homosexual, and this quote has been used as ‘proof’ that Edward and Piers were lovers. Personally, I find it striking that the author of Vita would mention both those relationships to describe the relationship between Edward and Piers. The chroniclers of the time would have found it very difficult to discuss the sexuality of the king. In the recent BBC 4 documentaries on ‘The Medieval Mind’, homosexuality, and the act of sodomy, seems to have been the ultimate taboo. The rich and powerful were often destroyed through being accused of sodomy and witchcraft. Hell awaited them, and images of sodomites with roasting spits inserted through their anus and turned by demons were typical of the time (sound familiar?). No one accused Piers of sodomy in his lifetime and Edward was only accused in 1326, after his deposition. Whatever the depth of feeling between Edward and Piers, I doubt they would have openly flaunted their relationship to the extent it would be openly commented on. Hence the chroniclers can only subtly hint at the relationship. So we have the descriptive comparisons with David/Jonathan, Achilles/ Patroclus, and the accusation that Edward ‘forgot’ himself and Piers accused of sorcery (in another chronicle, Edward is said to love an ‘evil, male sorcerer’.)

In 1307, Edward Ist banished Piers Gaveston , seemingly because he and Prince Edward had become too close. It seems the prince had asked his father for Ponthieu for his friend. Or rather, he sent the king’s Treasurer, Walter Langton to ask. Edward 1st allegedly replied "'You wretched son of a whore! Do you want to give away lands now? You who have never gained any? As God lives, if not for fear of breaking up the Kingdom, I would never let you enjoy your inheritance!' This was followed up by a physical attack on the Prince.

The fury felt by the king seems to have been directed more at the prince than Piers, who was banished with an annual salary from the king and gifts of money and clothes from the Prince. Why should the king be so concerned about a relationship between his son and Piers? If he felt Piers was avaricious and manipulative of the prince, then why not banish him immediately and why give him a salary? It seems to me that the king may have thought the prince had some sort of ‘adolescent crush’ on Piers, and that by removing him from the Prince’s company, the ‘crush’ would be forgotten. The king’s plan didn’t work, because the new king’s first act was to recall Piers.

Edward II made Piers Earl of Cornwall, married him to his niece Margaret de Clare and showered gifts upon him. Edward would surely want to give gifts to his lover, and raise him as high as possible. Marrying him to his niece would be a further way to honour Piers and bind them together through a blood relationship. Both Edward and Piers fathered children before their marriages and also had children by their wives. It’s obvious that neither found women abhorrent and were able to have sexual relationships with women. Both men would have wanted to provide heirs, and in Edward’s case, he knew what his duty was. His relationship with Piers was no threat to his wife, Isabella of France, and didn’t prevent him from doing his duty.

Piers played a prominent part in the coronation of Edward and Isabella – even wearing royal purple. He carried the crown and organised the banquet. He had even served as regent – unopposed by the barons – when Edward had sailed for France to marry Isabella. There’s no doubt that Edward trusted him completely and wanted to honour Piers as much as he could. Was it also an attempt to show Piers he was still as important to him even though he was married?

Piers was banished twice more – with the barons using him as leverage against the king. Edward was utterly devoted to him, and could not bear to be parted from him – so much so that he made concessions to the barons to do everything he could to keep Piers with him. Is this the action of a friend or a lover?

After the third banishment, Piers returned, possibly because his wife was due to give birth and because he did not want to be parted from Edward. Without going into a full narrative account at this point, Edward and Piers were separated and Piers’ fell into the hands of his nemesis, Guy, Earl of Warwick, who took him to Warwick Castle, gave him the pretence of a trial and passed sentence of execution, in reality, murder.

That the barons were opposed to Piers, there is no doubt. The problems between Piers and the barons, I shall save for a further blog – but what strikes me about Piers’ murder is the desire by the barons to strike at the king and hurt him in the only way they could – to kill the man he loved. Whatever Piers was accused of, he didn’t deserve to die. Did the barons, like the king’s father before them, think of Piers’ influence as unnatural, and to blame for all the woes that had befallen the country? Did they, in their ‘medieval minds’, think by removing Piers the king’s passion would die, and their jealousies over intimacy, titles and lands would be allayed?

Edward was devastated – and it is his treatment of Piers in death that also convinces me they had been lovers. Edward had a strong affinity to the Dominican friars, and he brought Piers’ body to the friary at Langley. The Dominican friars had the head sewn back and the body embalmed. Edward worked tirelessly to have the excommunication passed on Piers reversed, and even when this was done, it was a further two years before Piers was buried. Why did Edward wait so long before burying Piers’ body? Possibly because he could not bear to place his body in the ground. Edward ordered that prayers were said for the soul of Piers, and he never forgot the treachery of the barons. The execution of his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster, in many ways was a ‘parody’ of Piers’. Edward also made frequent references to Piers throughout the remainder of his reign.

2008-09-13T07:42:00.000-07:00

The World of Celebrity – 14th century style.

Overwhelmed with work this week, I can’t write what I wanted to. So I’ve decided to ‘lighten up’ a little. After a discussion with Alianore and Lady Despencer at Alianore’s excellent Edward II forum about 21st century celebrity, I thought I’d have go at some articles that might have appeared in the glossies in the 14th century had they existed. So, move over Colleen Rooney, Jade Goody and Jordan and Peter.

1. Exclusive! Why Purple is THE colour for the perfect coronation outfit – exclusive interview with Piers Gaveston.

2. Exclusive photo shoot at the Earl of Cornwall’s fabulous new home - Tintagel Castle. Plus, Piers gives you tips on how to decorate your castle with style.

3. ‘Why Gaveston and I will never be friends’ – exclusive interview on the feud between the Earl of Cornwall and Duke of Lancaster.

4. ‘Kiss and tell’ exclusive – country peasant girl reveals ‘How I made an man out of Ed and had his lovechild’.

5. Isabella of France models her range of bridal clothes, and tells how why she’s happy to set up home in Westminster.

6. Ed’s top ten garden tips – exclusive photos of his gardens at Langley. We learn the secrets of his enormous turnips!

7. Isabella tells all! ‘There are three of us in this marriage’.

8. You’re invited to the social event of the year, with ‘Hark!’ magazine – we preview the Earl of Cornwall’s plans for a fabulous tournament at Wallingford.

9. Piers’ interview, on why diamonds are an Earl’s best friend, and rubies, and emeralds etc.

10. King Edward presents his new favourite at court – meet Hugh Despencer! ‘He may not have Piers’ wit, but he looks damned hot in his hose!’

The friendship between Piers and Edward

2008-09-06T12:39:00.000-07:00

Piers transferred to Prince Edward’s household around 1300. Piers was one of the prince’s squires. Piers is usually credited as being the eldest of the squires. Edward Ist may have been initially pleased with Piers fitting into the prince’s household. In 1302, Edward Ist instructed his wardrobe clerk, Ralph de Stokes to provide Piers with clothes for each season and to increase his pay to 15d a day. His horse was now valued at £20, and he was given the ward ship of Roger Mortimer.

In August 1303, Piers was now referred to as the prince’s companion, rather than squire. Piers had indeed found good fortune in Prince Edward’s household. The obvious question asked over and over is just what was the nature of the relationship between Piers Gaveston and Edward, Prince of Wales?

The 2 most recent bios on Piers take opposing views. J. S. Hamilton published ‘’Piers Gaveston, politics and patronage in the reign of Edward II’ in 1988. He takes the more accepted view that Piers and Edward were lovers. Pierre Chaplais’ ‘Piers Gaveston, Edward II’s adoptive brother’, published in 1994, takes the, erm, view that the relationship was based around a ‘blood pact of brotherhood’.

Both books are excellent bios of Piers’ life, and I’d recommend reading them both. In this part of the blog, I’ll deal with the Chaplais viewpoint.

Chaplais argues that there isn’t any actual evidence from any chronicler at the time accusing Ed and Piers of being lovers, although we do have the famous quote –

"I do not remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus. But we do not read that they were immoderate. Our King, however, was incapable of moderate favour, and on account of Piers was said to forget himself, and so Piers was accounted a sorcerer." (Vita Edwardi Secundi)

The reference to the Biblical Jonathan and David is often used to describe a gay relationship, as is the reference to Achilles and Patroclus. A chronicler from the 14th century would not have been able to describe freely the relationship between Edward and Piers, but chooses comparisons that indicate they were lovers – and adding that they were ‘immoderate’, which in my opinion indicates that far from being discreet in their relationship, Ed and Piers may well have flaunted it. Then we have the classic reference that Ed was under the spell of Piers, an accounted sorcerer, which suggests to me the writer of the chronicler was drawing on age-old prejudices, and that sorcery had made the king what he was, ie, gay.

Chaplais also says that Philip of France, the father-in-law of Ed, voiced no reservations that Ed was gay when he had denounced the Templars and Pope Boniface as sodomites. This doesn’t hold water either – all Philip would have been concerned with was making his daughter Queen of England and ensuring she produced an heir to inherit the throne. It wouldn’t matter to him what Edward’s sexuality was, as he knew that Edward knew his duty was to provide an heir. He must have known that Edward had an illegitimate son, and that consummating the marriage with his daughter wouldn't be a problem - sex with women did not revolt Edward.

So what does Chaplais believe? He thinks that Ed and Piers had a chivalric friendship, an adoptive brotherhood. Both had lost their mothers at a young age, and perhaps had a lonely childhood. They would both have known tales of chivalry. Edward did not have a brother near his own age – although he did have his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster. Chaplais believes that Edward and Piers were involved in a ceremony where they shed and mingled their blood, and whereby they promised to be adoptive brothers. As such, Edward elevated Piers to the royal title of Earl of Cornwall and married him to his niece, Margaret de Clare, to bring Piers into his family. Edward was quoted as referring to Piers as his ‘brother’. Chaplais suggests they would have kept the ‘blood brothers’ ceremony a secret in order not to annoy the king and his nobles. Chaplais says that such ceremonies were common at the time. And yet there is no report of such a ceremony and it’s significance so high up as to include royalty in England. Edward, once king and having made Piers an earl and married him to his niece, didn’t tell the magnates why he had done so. Blood brothers were meant to care and help each other, and do their best to promote the needs of the other – what could Piers Gaveston do for Prince/King Edward? And why would Edward need an adoptive brother anyway? They may well have gone through some sort of ceremony – but in my opinion, it would have been for completely different reasons – maybe some sort of commitment ceremony. Edward could hardly have referred to Piers as his ‘lover’ – ‘brother’ would put a more respectable title to the relationship.

Chaplais received criticism for his interpretation. His response was to say that he was offering an alternative viewpoint of the relationship, and moving way from the assumption that the relationship was a gay one. He states that he did not deny the relationship was homosexual – just that it could be viewed differently.

Was Piers Gaveston a blonde or brunette?

2008-09-01T12:49:00.000-07:00

One of the most important pieces of information missing about Piers is his appearance. No likeness of him survives. There is no record of any official portrait. Even the chroniclers of the time do not describe a physical likeness of him unless you count the description of him at Edward’s coronation, where he is described as looking like the God Mars.

We know roughly his age when he met Edward of Caernavon and that he had seen military service – and gained some success. Perhaps then we can deduce he was in good, physical shape. Edward 1st considered him a role model for his son, and his good manners and grace were commented upon. The one piece of information that could give us any detail about how Piers looked is probably lost to us. After his death, Edward built him an elaborate tomb near his palace at Kings Langley. Needless to say, the Reformation accounted for the destruction of the Dominican friary and church. I contacted the historical society of Langley, and was told that a school now occupies the site of the friary, but it is possible the tomb survives underneath the school – though goodness knows what condition it would be in. It’s tempting to think that Edward would have wanted a fine effigy of Piers to adorn the tomb – and if so, and it survived, what a find it would be!

So we are left to fiction and the imagination of authors for a physical description. However, even they can’t agree on whether Piers was a blonde or a brunette. I always enjoy the anticipation of reading a novel with Piers in to find out whether he’ll be fair or dark haired. In most cases, he is dark haired, sometimes with a reddish tinge. He’s usually described as having dark skin – olive being a favourite adjective. Maybe this is to do with him being from Gascony, from the South of France (though Gascony was in English hands at the time), and bordering Spain. It doesn’t follow though that he has brown eyes to match his hair colour and dark skin – he often has green or blue eyes as well. When he’s blonde, he inevitably has blue eyes. He is of course always described as handsome. And anyone reading Chris Hunt’s ‘Gaveston’ will be quickly made aware that he has the most wonderful arse :)

The Hunt cover at least has a rather good-looking illustration of Gaveston on the cover – with dark hair and green eyes, and smooth, olive skin. A very blonde Edward II looks over his shoulder.

On the cover of a novel called Alice – well, Piers, in my opinion, looks like a 1970’s Mills and Boone hero – dark-haired and hairy chested! Sort of like Tom Jones in the 1970’s!

The worst cover by far is Brandon Purdy’s ‘Confession of Piers Gaveston’ – with a sinister, caricatured dark-haired Piers leaning over the shoulder of what looks like a 12 year old Edward II. Maybe the dreadful cover serves as a warning to the dreadful contents inside.

In a future post here I'll discuss my favourite portrayals of Piers in fiction - and erm, those that, frankly, irk me - and that's putting it mildly!

Piers' early life.

2008-08-28T02:57:00.001-07:00

Piers Gaveston – Early Life

Very little is known about Piers’ early life. He was born in the early 1280’s, and was the son of Arnaud de Gabaston and Claramonde de Marsan. His mother died either in 1287 or 1288, when Piers was very young. In the 1280’s and 90’s, his father was busy in the service of Edward 1st . Thus Piers had a common link with Edward II – his childhood must have been very lonely, having lost his mother and his father frequently absent. There is no evidence to say what happened to Piers at this stage in his life – where he lived, and who looked after him.

The first evidence of Piers in the service of Edward 1st is in 1297. His father had been held by the King of France, and managed to escape to England, bringing the young Piers with him. Piers was probably in his early teens. He seems to have taken part in Edward 1’s campaign in Flanders. His status is given as a yeoman. Edward 1’s son, Edward of Carnarvon, did not accompany his father on this campaign, so Piers was still unknown to him. As a yeoman, Piers was paid 12d. a day. Another piece of information from the Flanders campaign is that Piers owned a horse valued at 12 marks. After the Flemish campaign, Piers’ father returned to Gascony – but Piers did not. He returned to England, still in the service of Edward 1st. From household accounts, we know that he and his horse were listed in a possible campaign for Scotland, and both he and his father served Edward 1st in the Scottish campaign of 1300. Piers’ brothers, the illegitimate Guillaume-Arnaude de Gabaston and Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan, accompanied their father as his squires. However, Piers did not – for he had risen in status. Edward 1st must have been very pleased with the young Gascon – so pleased, that he believed him to be a suitable role model for his own son, Edward of Carnarvon. Piers transferred to the Prince of Wales’ household in1300. A contemporary chronicle says that Piers was chosen because he came from ‘the region of fine manners and was courteous’. Edward 1st knew of his military skills from Flanders and the Scottish campaign, and this was probably a factor in transferring him to the Prince’s household.

Of course, the irony of Edward 1st’s actions won’t be lost on those that know how the relationship between Prince Edward and Piers developed.

Piers Gaveston – birth and family.

2008-08-24T12:51:00.000-07:00

According to the chroniclers of Edward II’s reign, Piers Gaveston was an upstart son of a Gascon knight, and his so-called ‘low birth’ was part of the reason for his unpopularity. J. S. Hamlton in his book ‘Piers Gaveston, Politics and Patronage in the reign if Edward II’, says it is possible to trace Piers’ family back to the mid 11th century, and that his father was no humble knight but descended from the ‘leading barons’ of Bearn. The name Gaveston comes from the name Gabaston, a village in Bearn, which takes its name from the nearby river Gabas.

Piers parents were Arnaud de Gabaston and Claramonde de Marsan. Arnaud was involved in the local politics of Bearne. The viscount of Bearn, Gaston VII, hd on occasion been something of thorn in the side of the English Kings Henry III and Edward Ist, particularly the latter. Edward 1st did not trust the viscount of Bearn, and one of his first acts as Duke of Acquitaine was to seize Gaston VII’s daughter as hostage for four years to ensure his loyalty. Even this was not enough to contain Gaston, and he himself was taken prisoner briefly in 1273. Edward Ist then forced him to do homage for his Gascon lands. Four knights were made to stand surety for Gaston’s oath not to leave Edward’s court without permission. One of these knights was Arnaud de Gabaston. Edward must have considered the important standing of the four knights.

Claramonde de Marsan was the daughter of Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan, and she shared the estates of her father with her brother Fortaner de Lescun. Her marriage to Arnaud de Gabeston made him a substantial landowner. Castles held by Piers parents were Roquefort-de-Marsan, Montgaillard-des-Landes, Hagetmau, St. Loubouer, Louvigny and Gabaston. His mother also held other lands in her own right. Not quite the humble family the chroniclers would have us believe, eh?

Arnaude de Gabeston spent twenty years in the service of Edward Ist, accompanying him in war, at court and acting as a ‘hostage’.

Arnaud and Claramonde had 5 childen, Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan, Piers, Gerard de Gabaston, Raimond-Arnaude de Gabaston and Amy de Gabaston. Piers also seems to have had an illegitimate brother, Guillaume-Arnaude de Gabaston .The exact date of Piers birth is unknown, although most historians believe it to be around the early 1280’s. Piers' mother Claramonde died in 1287, when he would have been of a similar age when Edward II lost his mother – thus giving them a kind of bond. Claramonde’s death plunged the family into financial difficulties, and Arnaud spent the last years of his life serving Edward 1st, along with his sons, including Piers.

One of the most common myths about Piers’ mother Claramonde was that she was a witch and burned at the stake. In fictional accounts of Piers’ life, this story is a common thread – but there is not a shred of evidence for it. Medieval chroniclers despised Piers, and the accusation of witchcraft was often levelled at those who were unpopular and powerful – Piers himself was described by one chronicler as a sorcerer. The medieval mind was obviously soothed to think that Piers’ influence over the king was obviously due to witchcraft.

Next part of the blog will deal with Piers’ early life at court.

2008-08-21T14:21:00.000-07:00

The top of the monument.

2008-08-21T14:09:00.000-07:00

The not-very-nice inscription at the base of the cross.

2008-08-21T14:07:00.000-07:00

First sighting of Gaveston's Cross.

2008-08-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

Like looking for a needle in a haystack. The wood surrounding Gaveston's cross.

2008-08-21T13:55:00.000-07:00

Gaveston's Cross, August 2008

2008-08-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

We then decided to knock on a local’s door. A young girl answered, and we made our quest known. She knew of ‘the old monument’! She’d last been there a year ago, and said the local kids hung around there. Only problem was, she couldn’t quite remember how to tell us to get there. We had to go across the field – not along it - and we’d come to a fence which the farmer had put up. I asked if we’d be able to see it from the field, to which she replied ‘not a chance’. We decided to try – and realised the difficulty as we set out across the field – the monument is hidden not high on a hill, but in a small wood! Why the 2 locals neglected to tell us this, I don’t know! No wonder it was so difficult to find. My heart sank – how on earth would we find it? There was a wire fence alongside of the field, with several parts of it damaged, so we could get into the wood – but where to start? I admit I felt really downhearted – but not ‘Katerina’, who was determined to find it. We walked alongside the field, and Katerina made a decision to enter the wood at one of the broken parts of the fence. ‘Come on, we might as well try this part’. We climbed over the broken fence – what made her choose that particular broken part, I don’t know. I envisaged us spending hours in the wood, Katerina getting fed up and giving up.

I cannot believe our luck! Within 30 seconds of entering that wood, I SAW the Gaveston Cross! Katerina didn’t see it, but then she didn’t know what she was looking for, but I spotted it straight away. No pathway led to it, it was dwarfed by the trees, but I could see it! We raced over to it, and on the far side, is the awful inscription, which leads to a sheer drop – this was ‘Blacklow Hill’ – and the direction Piers would have taken. The monument was really tall, with a set of uneven steps which we managed to climb a little. It was covered in moss, and, unfortunately, kids had carved their names and initials into it. It was obviously a place kids hung out at in the evenings. It’s a fine monument, and would be easily spotted on a street – but tucked away in the middle of a wood, with no footpath, no sign even, it was neglected, with locals knowing it only as ‘the old monument’. Must admit, I felt quite emotional seeing it, and even Katerina said she was disgusted that such a superb looking monument was hidden away.

If anyone reading this account would like to visit the monument, I wish you the best of luck finding it – because I, like the locals, just know it’s in the woods alongside of a local farmer’s field. Legend has it that at certain times, bells can be heard – the bells belong to the horse on which Gaveston was placed to take him to Blacklow Hill. I don’t think Lancaster would have made him walk – it’s too far from the cowardly Warwick’s land to make him walk – it would have taken too long, and I have the feeling they wanted it over as soon as possible. Another legend says that on the far side of the monument, where the drop is, ie, at the foot of Blacklow Hill, voices are often heard – men’s and women’s – that formed part of the procession that Piers took.

The Search for Gaveston's Cross

2008-08-21T13:50:00.000-07:00

This is an account of my recent visit to Warwickshire to find the monument which marks the site of the murder of Piers Gaveston.I first tried searching for this elusive cross when I visited Warwick Castle in the late 80’s with my parents. I managed to find out it was in Leek Wooten and foolishly assumed it would be a monument on view. How very wrong I was. In all, I made 3 attempts to find the cross in the 1980’s on 3 visits to Warwick, and had given up. It didn’t help that anyone at Warwick didn’t know anything about it. This year, I decided to have a short break in Stratford, and was determined to find the elusive cross. I felt hopeful, as it was even marked on local maps of Warwick.

First problem, I didn’t have my car. Then, in Stratford tourist office, no one had heard of the monument still. In Warwick, a lady there confirmed she had heard of it, but had no idea where it was – except it was near Leek Wooten and gave me a bus timetable. A friend of mine had decided to come to Stratford with me – and she had no interest in history at all. Her interest was stoked, (thank goodness!) because no one seemed to have heard of this monument.We caught the bus to Leek Wooten, and the driver was amazed that we wanted to get off there. To say it’s a tiny hamlet is an understatement. I felt a little hopeful because we had passed street road signs with ‘Gaveston’ and ‘Piers’ in them. We walked the length of Leek Wooten in under 5 mins, and could not make head nor tail of the map. No signs for the monument, and no mention of Blacklow Hill. Then we came across a postman, and at last! – someone who knew what I was on about! Yes, he knew about ‘the old monument’, but his memory was a little rusty as to how to get to it. He gave us some directions, but warned us that a local farmer had fenced off his land, and we’d find it difficult to get to the cross. We had to trudge across a field, which he warned us would be muddy, and then we’d come to a ‘gate’ which sealed off the land. We followed his advice, and I was heartened to find a house with the name ‘Gaveston Lodge’. We got to the end of a row of newly built houses, and found a field! Gazing along the field, we couldn’t see anything that resembled a hill or a monument.