November 1307 marriage of Piers Gaveston and Margaret de Clare.

November 1st 1307 was the anniversary of the wedding between Piers Gaveston and Margaret de Clare, niece of Edward II.  Margaret was the second daughter of Gilbert de Clare and the daughter of Edward 1st, Joan of Acre.  She had 2 other sisters, and her elder sister Eleanor was married to Hugh Despencer, and at this time, there was no attachment  between Edward II and Despencer. This was Edward's way of bringing Piers into the Royal family.   The Vita Edwardi Secundi says it was Edward's aim to 'strengthen Piers and surround him with friends '.   At the time of her marriage , Margaret was only 14, and would have had very little say in the marriage.   Margaret’s thoughts on her marriage are not recorded, but she may well have been pleased with her Uncle’s choice.  Chroniclers describe Piers as elegant and graceful.  Edward 1st was said to have chosen Piers as an ideal role model for his son , with a chivalrous attitude and impeccable manners.  The marriage would have given her access to the king and with her husband created an Earl, Margaret would have been made Countess of Cornwall.  The marriage took place at Berkhamsted Castle, and the King and some of the nobles attended.  The couple were given jewels and the king arranged for almost £8 in pennies to be thrown over the happy couple.   There was a lavish celebration and afterwards, a tournament was held at Wallingford at which Piers and his knights excelled.  It was an excellent match for Margaret, and whatever her feelings, she would have done her duty.

The tomb of Sir Thomas Boleyn

I've visited Hever Castle, the ancestral home of the Boleyn family, several times, but I've never had the

time to visit the family church, St Peter's.   It's here the Boleyn family would have worshipped, including of course, Anne Boleyn, future Queen of England and mother of Elizabeth 1st.  Finally managed to make time to visit it this summer.  What a beautiful church it is, and walking through the entrance, it gave me a real feeling of walking in the footsteps of the young Anne Boleyn.  Inside is the tomb of Anne's father, Sir Thomas Boleyn.  Sir Thomas, who has, in my opinion, often been unfairly portrayed in books and certain television series, one in particular, survived the fall of his brilliant children, Anne and George.  I don't subscribe to the view that he engineered the rise of both his daughters, putting Mary in Henry VIII's bed and Anne on the throne.  He undoubtedly was ambitious - as were many Tudor courtiers, but he could not have known that Henry would become so infatuated with Anne he would break with Rome, destroy his first wife, and marry her.  As for Mary, Thomas did not need to rely on Mary to elevate his status.  He was a brilliant linguist and superb ambassador to Henry VIII.  He had secured places at various courts for all his children, and Henry was known to discard his mistresses without sentiment or rewards.  Mary hardly made a fine match.  As for Anne, I firmly believe she was in charge of her own destiny.  What I do find hard is Thomas, despite the loss of his children and being stripped of his title Earl of Wiltshire, continued to serve Henry as best he could, even attending the christening of Henry's son Edward.  He must have been a broken man, although he had his daughter Mary, whom he considered a disgrace after her second marriage, and grandchildren.  Surely best to just stay on his estate at Hever and avoid court, and attempt some sort of reconciliation with Mary.  We'll never know how he felt, or see into the mind of a Tudor statesman.   What is telling is that when his wife, Elizabeth Boleyn, died, she chose to be buried at Lambeth, with her Howard family.  So Sir Thomas has no family resting with him at St Peter's (although there is some evidence the Boleyns had more children who did not survive infancy and may be buried in the church).  Anne and George of course had no choice - they are buried within the walls of St Peter ad Vincula, the chapel in the Tower of London.  The resting place of Mary Boleyn is unknown.

The inscription and brass of the tomb of Sir Thomas Boleyn.

The entrance to St Peter's Church.

The sign outside the church, announcing the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth 1st rests within.

 

More from the Six Lives exhibition

The Anne Boleyn Psalter - this passage was written by Anne Boleyn.  Her signature was later cut from the book.

Portrait of Katherine Parr, from a private collector.

Miniature of Anne of Cleves, painted by Hans Holbein.

Miniature of Catherine Howard.

Letter written by CatherHoward to Thomas Culpepper.

 

Tudors, Tudors, everywhere.

 I think everyone with an interest in history knows the Tudors are top of the tree.  So many books, articles and tv dramas or documentaries.  This year there has been an exhibition of the work of the artist Hans Holbein, Henry VIII’s painter.  At the present time, the National Portrait Gallery has an exhibition called Six Lives - the stories of the six wives.  I’ve been to both.  The Holbein exhibition was outstanding, to see the originals of Holbein’s sketches was amazing.  However, I don’t feel quite the same about Six Lives.

Six Lives costs £21 plus a donation to the NPG.   Highlights for me were the small charm whistle and cosmetic attachments that Henry VIII was said to have given Anne Boleyn, the original bronze medal of Anne Boleyn from 1534, and documents from the National Archives.   These had been borrowed from other museums, and there were other items borrowed from colleges and a few from private collectors.  The vast majority of the portraits, however, were from the NPG’s own collection, which you can usually see for free whenever you want.   That’s the issue for me - £21 is an awful lot of money to pay for most of the exhibition you can see for free.   The exhibition runs until September 8th.  If you can’t visit then, or are put off by the price, just remember you can see most of the portraits for free at the NPG.

Below, miniature charm given to Anne Boleyn

 

Medal of Anne Boleyn 1534

Edward II’s re-action to the death of Piers Gaveston

 When Edward II heard about Piers being kidnapped by Guy, Earl of Warwick, he must have truly feared what would happen.  Having been relieved that Piers had surrendered to The Earl of Pembroke on very favourable terms at Scarborough Castle, Edward knew Pembroke to be a man of honour and would keep Piers safe.  But his kidnap by Guy of Warwick struck fear into Edward.  Warwick didn’t act alone.  Edward’s cousin, Thomas of Lancaster, was waiting at Warwick Castle for Piers, and both were united in their hatred of Piers.  There could only be one outcome.  Both men were obviously fearful at what they were about to do.  Warwick stayed in his castle, refusing to attend the ’ execution’ of Piers or even allowing it to take place on his land.  He handed him over to Lancaster, who took him to Blacklow Hill, which was part of his lands.  Even Lancaster didn’t have the stomach to watch Piers being run through with a sword and then his head cut off.

It seems Edward didn’t learn what had happened until days later.  According to the Vita Edwardi Secundi, Edward exploded with rage - at Piers!

“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.”

It seems an extraordinary outburst from Edward.  After all, it wasn’t Piers fault that he was kidnapped by Warwick.  I’m sure Piers must have known disaster awaited him after Warwick seized him when Pembroke left him at Deddington so he could visit his wife.  He knew how Warwick and Lancaster loathed him.  He didn’t need Edward’s advice for that.   Calling Piers a fool, almost blaming him, for what happened, seems totally out of character for Edward, who clearly loved Piers.   One can only put it down to shock before the grief kicked in.  Edward’s actions afterwards demonstrate his deep love for Piers and his determination to get his revenge upon Warwick and Lancaster.

June 19th - death of Piers Gaveston

 Today marks the anniversary of the death - supposedly execution but more like murder -  of Piers Gaveston, 1312.  After surrendering to Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke on May 19th at Scarborough Castle, neither Piers or Edward II could have guessed that Piers would be dead a month later.  Whilst in the custody of Pembroke, Piers was left at Deddington Priory whilst Pembroke went to visit his wife at Bampton.   Piers' enemy, the 'Black dog of Arden', Guy of Warwick, must have had some knowledge of what was happening, as he struck when Pembroke left and took Piers prisoner.   He rushed to his fortress at Warwick, attempted a show of a trial - where Piers was not allowed to speak, and sentenced him to death.  Handing him over to Edward II's cousin Thomas of Lancaster, he was taken to Blacklow Hill on Lancaster's land and run through with a sword by two of Lancaster's men.  Only then was his head cut off.  A shameful and violent episode of Edward II's reign.  The murder of Piers achieved nothing except to bring down the wrath of Edward II on his cousin.  Lancaster would face the same fate himself in 1322.

Monument to Piers Gaveston at Blacklow Hill.  The inscription at the base of the monument below.

May 19th - beginning of the end for Piers Gaveston and execution of Anne Boleyn

 May 19th has come round again.  May 19th 1312 is the day Piers Gaveston, having returned from his third exile, to meet once again with Edward II at the beginning of the year and to his wife and their newly born daughter Joan,  was delivered into the custody of Amyer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke.  Piers had gone to Scarborough Castle to prepare for a siege, but evidently wasn't that prepared, and surrendered on very good term to Pembroke.  If no decision between the barons and Piers was reached, he was to be allowed back to Scarborough Castle.  Pembroke was a man of honour, and Piers must have felt confident he would once again 'escape' destruction.

Anne Boleyn had been due to be beheaded on May 18th, 1536,  but had to wait 24 hours due to the swordsman from Calais  being delayed.  Anne must have suffered agonies awaiting her fate.  The delay was undoubtedly cruel.  Nevertheless, Anne was ready the next day to meet her fate, which she did with great dignity.  No doubt there will be flowers delivered/taken to the Tower of London, as is the tradition every May 19th. 

 For once, my Anne Boleyn rose has started to bud ready for May 19th.

This year I was fortunate to visit Hever Castle, which is undergoing alterations to develop the Boleyn Apartments.  Two of Anne's prayer books are on display, with the one on the right believed to have been carried by Anne to the scaffold.

Review of Edward II: His Sexuality and Relationships by Kathryn Warner

 Having known Kathryn Warner a number of years, this is the book I always thought she needed to write.  Kathryn's research is always meticulous.  She has read almost every work of non-fiction and fiction on Edward II, as well as ploughing through various chronicles and Edward's chamber accounts.   What is noticeable from her latest book is the sheer number of novels and some non-fiction book that focus on the sexuality of Edward II.  This is in part no doubt due to the collapse of his marriage to Isabella of France, his deposition and his subsequent death - and the infamous red hot poker story which held sway for so many years.  The story is an invention from many years after Edward's death and there is even evidence that Edward did not die at Berkely Castle.  The story has often been repeated in an almost salacious way, even as recently in an episode of Secrets of the Royal Palaces a couple of years ago, and presented as fact. The sheer number of novels that present Edward in a homophobic way is shocking, and Kathryn Warner presents some dreadful examples.  The homophobia often seeps into non-fiction, particularly those written well in the last century.   All this is contrasted with the 'romantic' relationship of Isabella, the estranged wife of Edward II, and Roger Mortimer, who helped Isabella overthrow her husband.  And yet, is there any evidence of this from the chronicles of the time?  Absolutely not.  There is no evidence of Isabella and Roger Mortimer having having a sexual relationship.  There is also no evidence of Edward II having a sexual relationship with Piers Gaveston or Hugh Despencer in the chronicles.  But there is evidence of Edward's devotion to both these men and their influence.  Kathryn Warner also delves into Edward's relationships with women - he had an illegitimate son and there is evidence of his meeting a woman in secret.   This book is an excellent history of the reputation of Edward and Isabella as told over the years, and what the actual evidence tells us.

Guest post by Kathryn Warner

 I'm delighted to welcome a guest post by author Kathryn Warner.   I've known Kathryn for a number of years and I sent her some questions about the relationship between Edward II and Piers Gaveston.  Enjoy!

We hear that Edward 1st gathered together household for his son, including cousins of the young prince.  Why was Piers Gaveston included - was he of the same prestige of others or was he chosen as a suitable role model?  And what made him stand out amongst the other young men of the household?

 

Piers Gaveston's presence in Edward II's household up until 1307, when Edward was heir to the throne, has often been misunderstood. In Piers' own lifetime and ever since, there has been a frequent but erroneous assumption that he was lowborn, and one novel of the twenty-first century, for example, depicts him as a child prostitute who was the nephew and ward of an inn-keeper. There is not a single solitary chance that Edward I would ever have dreamed of placing such a person close to his son and heir; the very idea is laughably absurd. Piers' presence as one of the future king of England's companions is proof that he was of high noble birth, and indeed, Piers' father and grandfathers were among the leading barons of Piers' native Béarn in the far southwest of France (this part of France was ruled by the kings of England at the time, and it would be inaccurate to call Piers a Frenchman). Edward II's other companions in childhood and adolescence included the earl of Ulster's daughter Eleanor de Burgh, whose sisters became the queen of Scotland and the countesses of Gloucester, Desmond, Kildare and Louth; the earl of Gloucester's nephew Gilbert de Clare, lord of Thomond; Maud Chaworth, granddaughter of the earl of Warwick and daughter and heir of a baron, who married Edward's royal cousin Henry of Lancaster in 1297; and probably Maud's younger half-brother Hugh Despenser the Younger, who married Edward's eldest niece in 1306. By 1305, Piers Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare of Thomond (who died in his twenties shortly after Edward II succeeded to the throne in 1307) had become the future king's closest companions. Although his year of birth is unknown, Piers was slightly older than Edward II, and took part in military campaigns from his early or mid-teens onwards. It is possible, therefore, that Edward I placed Piers, as a somewhat older nobleman and an accomplished soldier, in his son's household to act as a role model and mentor to the future king of England.

We’re told that Edward and Piers swore some sort of oath, which has been open to interpretation- one being it was a chivalric oath.  This seems unlikely to me.  What do you think?

 

Various chroniclers of the fourteenth century state that Edward II referred to Piers Gaveston as 'my brother Piers', and the idea that the two men took an oath of brotherhood was discussed at length by Pierre Chaplais in a 1994 book titled Piers Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother. We will never know for certain exactly what happened between Edward and Piers in private or what kind of relationship they had, but I agree with you that 'adoptive brotherhood' is perhaps unlikely. It seems almost certain that Edward did refer to Piers in public as his brother, but we should bear in mind that he lived in a world where it would have been impossible for him to acknowledge Piers as his partner or lover. Perhaps publicly calling Piers his 'brother' was Edward's way of presenting their close attachment in a way that would be acceptable by the standards of the era in which they lived.

 

I do think there's something of an issue with the way a few modern writers have depicted Edward's relationships with Piers Gaveston and with other men after Piers' death, compared to the way they write about the relationship that Edward's queen Isabella of France had with Roger Mortimer in the second half of the 1320s. Isabella and Roger's association has been over-romanticised to a ludicrous extent, and it's almost always taken for granted that the two had a passionately sexual, mutually adoring partnership. Yet there's really no more evidence that they were physical lovers than there is for the possibility, or likelihood, that Edward II and Piers, or Edward and Hugh Despenser the Younger a few years later, were lovers. You would never know this, however, from the way Roger Mortimer is inevitably described as Isabella's lover, as though we have webcam footage of the two in bed together. The same writers tend to claim that Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser were Edward's favouritse, friends, allies, associates or minions, but almost never do they state that they were his lovers. To me, it often comes across as the erasure of same-sex relationships, whether intentional or not, and the burden of proof demanded to state that Edward and Piers might have been lovers reaches an almost impossibly high standard. By contrast, it is usually taken for granted, without any real evidence required, that Isabella and Roger, an opposite-sex pair, simply must have been passionately in love and there cannot be any other explanation for their association.

You’ve written about the relationship between Edward, Piers and Isabella of France, (most notably about the youth of Isabella making her of little interest to her husband sexually and intellectually) - so why do you think Piers was made the villain of the coronation?  The stories circulating about his and Edward’s banners being prominently on show, Edward spending too much time at the coronation banquet with Piers, thus humiliating Isabella, and most notoriously, Piers being given all the wedding gifts?

 

Piers was loathed in his own lifetime for reasons that are hard to explain. Yes, he was the beloved of the king of England, and envy surely goes some way to explaining why he was so deeply unpopular, but the things we know that he did don't really seem to merit the utter opprobrium he attracted. It does appear, however, that Piers had a real talent for rubbing people up the wrong way. A contemporary chronicle called the Vita Edwardi Secundi states on several occasions that Piers was supercilious, conceited and arrogant, and bore himself in ways that would have been unbearable enough even if he had been a king's son. 

 

It's true that Edward II behaved rather badly at his and Isabella's coronation banquet, which took place on 25 February 1308 exactly a month after the royal couple's wedding, but the whole thing has often been hugely exaggerated. Isabella was only 12 when she married Edward and was crowned queen of England and was eleven years her husband's junior, and she and Edward hardly knew each other in February 1308. They might both have been shy and not known how to talk to one another or how and where to find common ground, and perhaps it was very awkward at the banquet with all eyes on them. Perhaps Isabella preferred to talk to her French relatives who were present, not knowing when (or even if) she might see them again. Perhaps Edward and Piers became engrossed in a conversation and lost track of time. Yet it's usually assumed that he acted maliciously and deliberately insulted Isabella by obviously preferring to talk to his close friend, or lover, than to her.

 

I can imagine, though, that the French people present at the coronation banquet, including Isabella, were taken aback to see Piers Gaveston's coat of arms adorning the walls, as though Piers and not Isabella was Edward's consort. To do that was supremely tactless and rude on Edward's part, and was something he should not have done. I doubt he meant it as a deliberate insult to his new wife, however. He'd ordered the banners a few months earlier, long before he'd ever met Isabella and when she was perhaps not quite real to him yet, not so much a person and an individual as the faceless girl he'd been betrothed to years earlier as a means of ending a war between their fathers. What's more interesting to me isn't so much the way that Edward behaved during the coronation banquet, but the over-the-top way that so many modern writers have depicted it, as though it's the worst thing that anyone's ever done to anyone. 

 

The idea that Edward gave Isabella's wedding gifts or jewels to Piers is endlessly repeated in modern books, articles and online, but is absolute nonsense, an invention of many centuries later. One chronicle states that Edward sent - sent, not gave - the wedding presents given to him by his father-in-law Philip IV of France to Piers Gaveston in England. Isabella isn't even mentioned; the gifts were given to Edward alone, not to Isabella, and not to Edward and Isabella jointly; and it's likely that Edward sent them to Piers, his regent of England during his absence overseas, to look after and keep safely for him. Even if Edward did intend Piers to keep the gifts, which included war-horses, they belonged to Edward and Edward alone, and he could do what he liked with them. It's ludicrous that so many modern writers keep mindlessly repeating a myth invented in the late nineteenth century, gasping in horror at the thought of poor victimised Isabella seeing her husband's lover strutting around in her own jewels, but it's pure fabrication.

 

It's as though because Edward and Isabella's marriage ended badly in the 1320s - many years after Piers Gaveston was dead - people think that their relationship must have been a tragic disaster from start to finish. Isabella must have been unhappy for every minute of her marriage. Edward must always have neglected and hurt and insulted his wife for every minute of their marriage. This has a narrative that has been created, that's all. A one-dimensional, simplistic narrative, where complex people in a complex relationship are incapable of feeling more than one emotion for the person who was their spouse for the best part of two decades. In the interests of perpetuating this narrative, however, every single tiny thing in Edward and Isabella's lives that wasn't perfect in every way has been magnified and distorted. 

We’ll never know, of course, but I’d like to ask your opinion, had Piers not been kidnapped and put to death by Guy of Warwick and Thomas of Lancaster, would his influence have been maintained over Edward or would it waned?  And how far would he have continued to climb?  

 

I can't imagine that Piers' influence over Edward and Edward's obviously strong feelings for him would have waned and lessened, but equally I can't imagine an alternative reality that wouldn't have ended in Piers' death at some point. Let's imagine that Guy Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, hadn't kidnapped Piers in June 1312, an act that ended in Piers' death shortly afterwards. Parliament would most probably have ended up exiling Piers from England and Edward's other dominions for the fourth time, Edward would have sulked and stormed for a while and eventually brought Piers back to England, and the whole cycle would have gone on again until Piers was dead, killed by the exasperated English barons. Given the attitude towards Piers in 1312, I cannot see a way in which his life could have continued for much longer, unless he'd willingly gone overseas and ignored Edward's summons to him to come back, and had never returned to England.

 

 

New Book about Edward II by Kathryn Warner

 I'm really looking forward to the publication of Kathryn Warner's new book, 'Edward II: His Sexuality and Relationships'.   It's due to be published at the end of February.  Obviously there will be a reference to his relationship with Piers Gaveston.   We don't know what the exact relationship between Edward and Piers was like.  Pierre Chaplais wrote a book entitled 'Piers Gaveston - Edward II's Adoptive Brother'.  Chaplais explores the relationship as one of chivalrous intent - that Edward wanted Piers to be his brother and that they took some sort of oath declaring this intent.   It's a very interesting read and interpretation.  I just wonder, if this was Edward's intent, why did he choose Piers Gaveston?  Yes, Gaveston had been sent to the Prince's household for his graceful manners and military skills.  Edward 1st considered him a role model for his son, and knew the family of Piers well.  But there were other young role models for the Prince in his household at the same time, notably, his cousin, Gilbert de Clare.  Surely he would have been more suitable as an 'adoptive brother'?  And did Edward really need an adoptive brother anyway?  And why not an 'adoptive brotherhood', with more than one member?  Piers was banished by Edward 1st after, apparently, his son had asked for the county of Ponthieu for Piers, which caused Edward 1st to explode with anger, and according to one chronicler, physically assault his son and banish Piers.  It was notable that the king did not blame Piers but rather his son.  Piers was to be banished for life.  Was Edward 1st aware of the 'adoptive brother' oath, and furious with his son for wanting to single out one of his household, and one who was not blood related, for such a special honour?  Did he find the whole idea of a chivalrous pact absurd?  Or was he aware of a sexual relationship between the 2, and that by asking for Ponthieu, the Prince was showing himself to openly raise his lover above anyone else, and that by asking for such a mighty prize for Piers, that far from raising Piers up because of an adoptive pact, he wanted to elevate him because of his love for him?  It would be a very bold step for the Prince.  Maybe the King thought it was a foolish infatuation, a crush that got out of hand, and that separation would be the best solution for the Prince.  Had not Prince Edward asked for that particular honour for Piers, and there's no evidence Piers pressured him into asking for it, Edward 1st may have turned a blind eye to whatever the relationship between the two, seeing it as a youthful infatuation that would run it's course, and that Edward would no doubt marry and have children anyway.

Kathryn Warner's book will be available from February 28th and can be pre-ordered from Amazon.

 

Best Books of 2023

 As usual, my first post concerns the best books I have read in 2023 - just my personal opinion.  2023 has undoubtedly been the year of Anne Boleyn.  I've never known so many books published in one year concerning Anne and the Boleyn family.  I'm always very dubious when a new book about Anne is published, because the market is already saturated with books on her.  Very few have a fresh look at the evidence available about Anne.  But this year, out of all the books, there were 3 gems.   So my top 3 books all carry the same weighting - I can't choose between them!

1.   John of Gaunt by Kathryn Warner.

John of Gaunt is such a fascinating personality.   He could never have known that his son by Blanche of Lancaster would become Henry IV or that the children he had by his third marriage to his mistress Katherine Swynford would go on to produce the Tudor dynasty.   Gaunt himself chased the crown of Castile when he married his second wife, Constanza, daughter of Pedro the Cruel.   He also had to navigate the stormy reign of his nephew, Richard II.  I like how th chapters have quirky titles that link to Gaunt.  As usual, Kathryn Warner's research is meticulous.

1.   Hunting the Falcon by John Guy and Julia Fox.

Absolutely fabulous book on Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII's quest to marry.  Sources are checked and either validated or refuted.  It's a cliche but once I started reading this book, I literally couldn't put it down.  A fabulous read.

1.  Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth 1st by Tracey Borman

A refreshing and informative book on Anne and Elizabeth, particularly the subtle ways in which Elizabeth kept her mother's legacy and achievements very much alive at court.   It's well known that Elizabeth promoted her Boleyn relatives at court, and the 'Chequers ring' with the portraits of Elizabeth and Anne enclosed.  But Borman delves a lot deeper to uncover subtle uses of her mother's device of the falcon or sphere, for example.  Borman also delves into Anne's care and hopes for her daughter.

4.  Yet another Anne Boleyn book!  The Final Year of Anne Boleyn, by Natalie Grueninger

This book does exactly what it says, with excellent research into Anne's final year.  Despite what we might think we know, 1536 was not a year of total misery for Anne.  The year started well with Anne pregnant, and what she felt was an advantage to her, the death of Katherine of Aragon.  But disaster soon followed, with her husband suffering a serious accident and Anne miscarrying a son.  And yet there were many reports of Anne and Henry being merry on their progress, and that her arrest and execution were not inevitable.  Lots of super detail in this book.

5.  Palace Lives by Michael Jones and Scott Hastie

I did a separate blog about this book last year.  It's about the palace at KIngs Langley, built by Edward Ist's Queen, Eleanor of Castile, and later the favourite residence of her sone Edward and his favourite companion, Piers Gaveston.  Research is still being carried out there, and who knows, the tomb of Piers may yet be found - we can only hope!

6.  The Granddaughters of Edward III, by Kathryn Warner.

Focus on Edward III tends to be on the males in the family.  But the story of his granddaughters is well worth telling.  I never knew one became a most revered Queen of Portugal, still remembered with much affection today, and another became Queen of Castile.  And of course there's the story of Elizabeth of Lancaster.

7.  Katherine by Anya Seton

OK, not a new book, and a definite classic.  But after reading John of Gaunt, I re-read Katherine, and what a remarkable work of historical fiction it is.  We know so very little about Katherine Swynford's life, but Seton does a fabulous job in her telling of it.  Vivid characters such as Blanche of Lancaster and Chaucer add to the appeal of this book.

8.  Oh no - it's Anne Boleyn again!   This time, it's Sandra Vasoli's Anne Boleyn's Letter from the Tower.

This book has been around for a couple of years, and I bought the recently updated version.  As well as examining the content of the letter itself, Vasoli traces the history of the letter, it's origins and how it came to be in the National Archives, even surviving a fire at Kew.

9.  Hans Holbein, His life and works in 500 images,  by Rosalind Ormiston

Exactly as described in the title.  

10.   Arthur, Prince of Wales, by Gareth Streeter

Gives an account of Arthur's preparation to inherit his father's throne.  He was a symbol of the marriage of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York, and literally  from birth was groomed for that role.  He was a symbol of hope for the end of civil war.  He received a superb education, and ruled a mini court at Ludlow successfully with support.  A fine marriage was made for him.  As we know, Arthur never became king, but with the tutoring he had, he would surely have made a better king than his brother.