The tomb of Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales

I've visited Worcester Cathedral many times, and always like to spend some time in Prince Arthur's Chantry.  It is a magnificent piece of architecture for a young man who promised so much and died early.  He's mostly remembered today for his short marriage to Catherine of Aragon, who went on to marry his younger brother after Arthur's death.  The nature of their marriage became very important later in the reign of Henry VIII, when he divorced Catherine on the grounds the marriage of Arthur and Catherine having consummated their marriage.  This discussion still continues today.  Here's a link to my earlier post on Arthur - who was far from the sickly youth portrayed in later generations.

Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales

Here are the pictures from my latest visit.  One of the figures surrounding the Chantry is allegedly Edward II.  The figures were defaced in the reign of Henry VIII's son, Edward VI.

 The chantry itself was constructed away from the cathedral and installed on top of previous tombs.

 The defaced figures inside the chantry - which one is meant to be Edward II?

 Prince Arthur's tomb.  Recent research has discovered the vault beneath the chantry where Arthur's remains are buried.  It's a 'double vault', but contains only one set of remains.  There was no effigy - it's likely the tomb had a brass placed on top of it.

 A copy of the original window from Malvern Priory.  This copy was added in 2002 to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Arthur's death.

 Taken from the chantry, this tomb is for Gruffydd ap Thomas and his wife.  Gruffydd asked to be buried near the prince he so loyally served.  The tomb also contains the remains of his wife.

The brass on top of the tomb of Gruffydd ap Thomas is a copy of a lost original.

Much more important, Novemeber 1st

is the anniversary of Piers wedding to Margaret de Clare, the niece of Edward II in 1307.  It's also Kathryn's 500th post on her fabulous blog Edward II.   Congratulations Kathryn and thanks for all the well-researched and fascinating posts!

Was Piers Gaveston's mother a witch?

OK, so this post tie-in is a day late - but being as it is a myth, perhaps that is no bad thing.  It is a myth often repeated in historical fiction.   Piers' mother was Claramonde de Marsan, and we know very little about her.  Claramonde was the daughter of the great landowner Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan, and it seems that Piers' father, Arnaud de Gabaston, was her second husband.  Claramonde died in 1287, when Piers was still a child.  We don't know the circumstances of her death, which is significant - because if she had been burned as a witch, undoubtedly her family would have been tarnished by association, and surely Edward Ist would not have found a place in his son's household for Piers?

 Other than her family, there is nothing else available about Claramonde.  So why then repeatedly in historical fiction - and, I've even seen it in 'factual' accounts about Piers, - does the myth about Claramonde being burnt at the stake for witchcraft  originate? It may be something to do with one of the chroniclers of Edward II saying that 'the King loved an evil male sorcerer more than he did his wife.'   It seems the chronicler thought Edward and Piers were lovers, and the only way to explain the king's love for Piers was that he had been induced by witchcraft.  Accusing enemies, and usually powerful enemies, of witchcraft was a useful tool in getting rid of them.  Accusations depended on interpretation.  However, it seems that none of the enemies of Piers considered this a serious allegation against him. Neither was he ever accused of heresy or holding beliefs from pagan times.  His excommunication was purely politically motivated.  So it seems in his own lifetime, Piers' mother was never accused of being a witch.

For historical novelists, however, the accusation is a powerful tool, and we get instances of Piers bragging about his mother being a witch, and even having scarred hands as he tried to save her from the flames!  Piers himself is accused of following the 'old pagan' religions, and there are scenes in novels where he takes Prince Edward to ancient ceremonies. 

I guess it all makes for drama and excitement in novels!  Why let the truth get in the way?!

Review of Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II at the National Theatre

I bought tickets for this production way back in the summer.  I agonised over whether to read the reviews before I saw the production, and in the event, only read one – which wasn’t a good one, to put it mildly.  

Arriving at the theatre, my heart sank a little at the scenery – which looked like a disused warehouse.  The play started with Edward II’s coronation, with the actor playing Edward pausing for long periods for effect as the king made his vows.  This was promising, I thought.  But from that point, the play proved a huge disappointment.  The play had no clear setting – it was a mixture of traditional and modern – the king wearing casual trousers but a magnificent golden robe and sitting on a fine throne.  Actors were wearing suits of armour – but with animal heads.  And then some characters changed sex.  I could cope with the Earl of Pembroke becoming a woman – and I mean being referred to as ‘she’, and not an actress playing the role as a man.  But what I couldn’t cope with was Edward’s brother, the Duke of Kent, being a woman – so, he no longer had a brother, but a sister.  What this added to the play, I just don’t get.  The actress playing the role wore a ‘power-dressing’ trouser suite with high heels, and spent a lot of time wandering aimlessly around the stage with no real purpose.

Naturally, I awaited Piers Gaveston’s arrival with eagerness.  The actor playing him, Kyle Soller, made his entrance from the back of the stalls, climbing up on a wall and holding onto a railing.  This production makes it quite clear that the prejudice the barons have against Piers is that he is an upstart and as a Gascon, an outsider.  Which is why I presume he spoke with an American accent.  True, Soller is an American, but did they really have to have Piers speaking in an American accent to hammer home he was an outsider?  In a way, Soller’s performance stereotyped Piers as a brash American.  And Piers was clad in jeans and a leather jacket to just hammer it home further.  Apart from the accent, Soller gave a reasonable performance, and John Heffernan as Edward II aroused some sympathy for Edward, but the production also showed how petulant and, no other word for it, lurid, Edward and Piers’ behaviour could be.  However, there were some parts of the play which were actually played for laughs, which just seemed so wrong.  

The most annoying aspect of this production was the use of 2 screens on either side of the stage which was used to film the actors when hidden on the stage or at the side of the stage.  OK, it was adventurous – but when I go to the theatre, I would like to see the actors live on stage.  The stage set incorporated collapsible staging with ‘rooms’ on stage that the audience couldn’t see – so we had to rely on the screens whilst the actors were filmed on sometimes shaky video cameras.  We were presented with the nobles plotting against Gaveston on 2 giant video screens with the actors actually on stage but unable to be seen by the audience.  Similar scenes included ‘Spencer’ and Baldock being filmed outside the theatre and being relayed on screen.  We were also treated to Edward, Piers and their followers ‘partying’ with occasional flashes of light, bodies merged together and blaring music.  There were more scenes presented like this, but hopefully you get the gist of my gripe of using screens/cameras instead of us seeing the scenes on the actual stage.

Vanessa Kirby’s Queen Isabella drank and smoked too much, summoning her son, the prince, to refill her glass and light her cigarettes which caused much of the audience to howl with laughter.  Likewise when Edward and Piers enjoyed an extremely long, passionate kiss, not caring who saw them, and then a 3 way kiss with Spencer, a lot of the audience laughed – purely because the production played it for laughs. 

As for Prince Edward – ok, I could cope with an actress playing the prince, but her age and size were inappropriate.  Queen Isabella had to carry this ‘child’ at some points – a fully-grown woman dressed in shorts and a blazer!  Ridiculous!  Even more so was the tune of the Hokey Cokey after a battle scene – yes, honestly!

As in the previous production of Edward II I saw about 2 years ago, the ‘murderer’ Lightborn was played by the same actor who had played one of the king’s favourites – previously it was ‘Spencer’, and now it was Kyle Soller who played Gaveston – clearly to add to the drama of the murder of the king.  First we had to suffer Edward shuffling around the back of the stage in shorts and t-shirt, being filmed on a handheld camera and viewed on the giant screens.  A huge plastic sheet was brought out, and we have Edward pinned down and murdered by the red hot poker and then dragged off stage by the plastic sheet.  

One review I read said the production was like Marmite – you’ll either love it or hate it.  I can’t say that I hated it – but it was certainly a huge disappointment, with far too many gimmicky things going on.

 

 

Vanessa Kirby as Queen Isabella, John Heffernan as Edward II, Kyle Soller as Piers Gaveston

 

 

 

The Colosseum, Rome

One place I've always wanted to visit is the Colosseum in Rome.  I finally got around to it this year, and it lived up to all my expectations.  Completed in 80AD by the Emperor Titus, the Coloseum is made of concrete and stone.  It is believed to have held between 50,000 to 80,000 spectators.  According to our guide, the Colosseum operated a type of 'season ticket' approach, with each ticket holder knowing their entrance and place. 

The outside of the Colosseum would have been painted a range of colours and each alcove contained a statue.

Underneath the 'stage',  wild and exotic animals were often kept before being unleashed into the arena.  Props, such as palm trees could also be hoisted into the arena using pulleys and trap doors.   Our guide told us the days events often started with the animals being displayed.Then criminals were  executed - sometimes using the animals, or being made to fight each other, before the day's final attraction, the Gladiators.

 Note the holes in the concrete/stone - pillaged during the Middle Ages for the iron contained within.

No other way to put it - simply magnificent! 

August Mixed Bag

I'm afraid I've been on holiday for a good part of August so haven't done much blogging.  And today's post is just a short one.  Following on from my praise of Leanda de Lisle's article defending Margaret Beaufort, I read another interesting article on Susan Higginbotham's blog  History Refreshed, in which she discusses the 'slut shaming' .  Hadn't heard the term before, but I'll quote Susan's context for using it in her post on Catherine of Valois's reputation -

I find this willingness to stain the reputation of historical women on such flimsy evidence disheartening, particularly when the writer doing this academic version of “slut shaming” is an accredited historian. I find it even more disheartening when the author is someone dedicated to restoring the good name of another historical figure, Richard III.

I completely agree with Susan.  Many blogs have commented on the BBC, erm, 'drama' 'The White Queen', my favourite being the interpretation being on A Neville Feast blog.  Plus, newspapers have had a field day pointing out metal handrails on stairs, drainpipes in full view, zips on costumes etc.  As well as showing the drama, the BBC showed 2 documentaries hosted by Philippa Gregory called 'The Real White Queen and her rivals'.   Except it wasn't 'the real' story of these women - just an attempt to pass Gregory's fiction off as fact.  And what made it worse was the inclusion of several notable historians giving their views.  They didn't comment on controversial areas of Gregory's fiction, but to me, their inclusion seemed to be used by the BBC to legitimise Gregory's views.  And what made me particularly annoyed was the 'discussion' on Elizabeth of York and her 'affair' with her uncle, Richard III.  Gregory maintains that Henry VII waited 5 months before marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure she was not pregnant by her uncle Richard - a case of 'slut shaming'.  The obvious reason Henry VII waited was because he didn't want it to look as though he owed his crown to Elizabeth of York.  He didn't want them to be seen as 'joint sovereigns'.  Of course he hoped the marriage would reconcile the Houses of York and Lancaster - but there was no doubt in his mind that he was king by right, and his claim had nothing to do with his wife.  Makes much more sense than waiting to see if Elizabeth was pregnant by Uncle Richard!

Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had one of the happiest royal marriages.  They did not marry for love, but there seems to have been genuine growing  affection between them throughout their marriage, and Henry was devastated when she died.  He could - and probably should - have re-married, and although he searched for another wife, he never married again. 


Onto another Queen - this time, Mary, Queen of Scots.  I have just visited Edinburgh, and the National Museum of Scotland, has a superb exhibition on Mary.  here's the blurb from their website -

Created especially for the National Museum of Scotland and showing only in Edinburgh, the exhibition provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to discover much that has been written and speculated about Mary, one of the most charismatic monarchs of all time. Taking a fresh, innovative approach, using jewels, textiles, furniture, documents and portraits, Mary’s dramatic story and this fascinating period in Scottish history is explored in detail.
By drawing together rare objects intimately connected with Mary Stewart, as well as key loans from public and private collections, the exhibition features an array of treasures never before seen together, alongside new research.

I had only a short time in Edinburgh - but it still took me 2 hours to see the exhibition.  It's well worth a visit, and will be there until November.  It's the artefacts that make the exhibition for me.  Who knows when such a collection will be shown again?  The exhibition is balanced and examines the evidence available to try unravel the complications of Mary's life.

Superb article by Leanda de Lisle

I've been on holiday the last few weeks and have once again neglected this blog.  I've been stung into action today after reading a superb article by Leanda de Lisle in today's Daily Express newspaper.  I read de Lisle's book on Lady Jane Grey, which dealt with many of the myths that grew up surrounding Jane's short life, which I'd highly recommend.  I'm looking forward to her new book 'Tudor: The Family Story'. The article concerns the portrayal of Margaret Beaufort in the BBC's 'historical drama' (hmmm) 'The White Queen', which has certainly made me very angry.  Leanda de Lisle encapsulates exactly how I feel and has written fantastic article in defence of Margaret and the prejudices she has faced over the centuries.  Here's part of the article -

Don't always blame the mothers

WITH the kitsch BBC drama The White Queen moving to its conclusion Margaret Beaufort is the villainess viewers love to hate.

A frigid fanatic in high necklines she is the ultimate tiger mother. A woman willing even to commit child murder as she plots her son Henry Tudor's path to the throne.
But this is a depiction shaped by centuries of sexual and religious bigotry and by our still ambivalent attitudes to powerful women.

Female historians and novelists may claim a sisterly empathy for historical women but all too many of them are willing to plunder misogynistic myths to write their lives. And Margaret Beaufort is not their only victim.

In the Tudor period and for centuries afterwards it was considered wrong and unnatural for women to wield power. It followed that the kind of woman who sought power was also unnatural - so how to depict them? Well what could be more unnatural, more against a woman's proper nature than the abuse of children?

It seems no coincidence that Margaret Beaufort stands accused of planning the deaths of the White Queen's young sons, the so-called princes in the Tower, to clear the path for Henry Tudor to be king. The irony is that the real Margaret Beaufort was what we would consider to be an abused child. She was married at 12 and was so small and slight that her son's birth when she was 13 nearly killed her. She was unable to have further children and for the next 25 years Margaret was a pawn and victim of vicious power politics.


You can read the rest of the article by clicking on the following link -

Don't always blame the mothers....