Is this the face of Edward II?

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

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

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……….

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

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

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

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.