The ‘secret illness’ of Piers Gaveston

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

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

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’.

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........

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

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

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.