How about the hunt for the remains of Piers Gaveston?

Now that it has been proved that the remains found in the car park in Leicester are indeed the remains of Richard III, I've been thinking archaeologists need a new challenge.  The hunt for the remains of Richard III was aided by the Richard III society - and I was shocked there are only 4,000 members.  I thought there were so many more than that!  If they could raise over £10,000 pounds to foot the bill for the dig in Leicester, then why doesn't the Piers Gaveston Society seek to do the same?  Of course, the Piers Gaveston society was not formed to defend the reputation of Piers Gaveston - rather it's an elitest, secret society at Oxford University alledgedly dedicated to hedonism - something I'm sure Piers would approve of.  Members alledgedly include Boris Johnson, current mayor of London, actor Hugh Grant and Camilla Parker Bowles son, Tom.  This is what Wikipedia has to say about them -

Piers Gaveston society

I find the burial of Piers extremely moving.  Having died excommunicated, Edward II would not bury him until this had been revoked.  It was almost 2 years before Edward could secure a papal dispensation.  The body was cared for by the Dominican Friars at Oxford.  An elaborate funeral was held at the Dominican Friary at Kings Langley, where Edward and Piers had spent many happy times.

Check out this link to find out more about the priory - Kings Langley History Society.   I actually contacted the society to find out if there was any new information about the site of Piers tomb - which I'm sure was magnificent, knowing Edward II!  It seems the tomb is lost, and that a private school has been built on the site.  A friend of mine living in St Albans actually went on a visit to the school to find any information she could - alas, there was none.  Either Piers lies beneath the school, or he may have been reinterred in a local church.

Between them, surely Hugh Grant etc could find some money to launch an investigation?  And just think, the discovery of a skeleton could result in the reconstruction of Piers' face, just like Richard III's - now wouldn't that be something?  Of course, Piers doesn't hold the same 'romantic' fascinatio Richard III does - but you never know.  If I win the lottery, the search for Piers' resting place will be on my list to do.

Channel 4 and Richard III's DNA

On February 4th, at 9pm, Channel 4 in the UK will screen 'The King in the Car Park', and broadcast the results of the DNA tests and other work carried out on the skeleton that was recently found. 
Channel 4 Richard III

Ken Follett's World Without End

Channel 4 began showing Ken Follett's 'World Without End' on Saturday, January 12th.  It screened 'Pillars of the Earth' last year.  With it's connection to Edward II, it was a 'must-see' for him.  I should point out that I haven't read the book, so I've no idea whether the book is accurate.  The story starts in 1327, with the 'murder' of Edward II.  The only glimpse we have of Edward is of the back of his head, as he surrenders to his wife, Isabella,  after being defeated in a 'civil war'.  Very dramatic, and we have Edward removing his crown and handing it over to his son, which of course, did not happen.  We then follow the story of a knight, who seeks sanctuary with the monks and nuns of Kingsbridge, after claiming to have witnessed the murder of Edward II.  No red hot poker here - the king was hanged in his cell, and the story given out that he slipped and broke his neck.  The knight appears to threaten Isabella with revealing the truth unless she promises him his safety.  

Edward III seems to be older than he actually was, and certainly seems more ruthless.  Thus we have Roger Mortimer dragged from Isabella's bed and hanged without trial.  Isabella now seems hellbent on recovering the knight's whereabouts.

As far as the story of Edward II goes, the TV production is obviously inaccurate.  But the lives of the 'ordinary' characters is well-portrayed and the settings and costumes fantastic.  I look forward to the rest of the series.

Time for the Best Reads of 2012!

Happy New Year!  Time for me to reflect on some of the best books I've read in 2012.  Sadly, there were no new non-fiction/fiction books revolving around Piers Gaveston - and very little on Edward II.  Dan Jones' 'The Plantagenets' proved a huge disappointment.  So, in no particular order, here are what I consider to be the best reads of 2012.

1.  'Blood Sisters' by Sarah Gristwood, which tells the stories of the women involved in the 'Wars of the Roses'.  I really enjoyed this book, in particularly the stories of Cecily, Duchess of York, Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth of York.  These women suffered such tragedy in their lives, in particular Elizabeth Woodville, but they were resilient and I have to admire their strength in carrying on with their lives and ensuring the survival of their families.

2. ' Elizabeth of York - Queenship and Power', by Arlene Naylor Okerlund.  This was a great read with lots of details about Elizabeth's complicated life and the uncertainty she encountered.  It also portrays a happy marriage with Henry VII.  Of particular interest was Elizabeth's personal household  accounts which shows her charitable interests. 

3.  'Her Highness the Traitor', by Susan Higginbotham.  One of those books that once you start, you can't put down.  A sympathetic and warm portrayal of Frances Grey, the mother of lady Jane Grey and Jane Dudley, the wife of the Duke of Northumberland.  Very little has been written about Jane Dudley in fiction/non-fiction, and she emerges as a gentle, family-orientated woman who enjoyed a happy marriage and who showed great humility and courage in pleading of the lives of her family.

4.  'Song of Achilles' by Madeline Miller.  OK, this book started out really well, telling the story of Achilles through his lover Patroclus.   However, after about three quarters through, it seemed to lose it's way and I had to force myself to finish it.

5.  Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London (1877)  by Doyne Courtenay Bell.   A gem of a book based on the project carried out in Queen Victoria's reign.  The chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula is the chapel in the Tower of London which is the burial place of some of the most important victims of the Tudor period.  The chapel had begun to decay and fall into disrepair, and Queen Victoria ordered it to be repaired, and that as the floor of the chapel was in such a bad way, it be lifted, and those remains which could be identified were to be re-buried appropriately.  The book details the remains found and how some of them were identified, and how the authors came to the conclusions they did. 

6.  'Bring Up the Bodies' by Hilary Mantel.  Continuing the story of Thomas Cromwell.  Even though I am pro-Boleyn, I really enjoy this portrayal of Thomas Cromwell.  The big flaw for me, however, were Cromwell's reasons for selecting the victims to bring down Anne Boleyn.

Tis the season to be jolly.....

A Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

Historical Reconstruction: Anne Boleyn 'The Moost Happi' Portrait Medal

Whilst surfing the net, I came across this superb reconstruction of a medallion of Anne Boleyn.  It's a reconstruction of the only surviving contemporary portrait of Anne Boleyn.  Check out any book on Anne Boleyn and you'll find it.  Here is a picture of the badly damaged original -

Stonecarver Lucy Churchill has superbly reconstructed it.  This is the result -

To find out about Lucy's reconstruction, check out her web page here -

http://www.lucychurchill.com/AnneBoleynMedal.php

There are an awful lot of tacky 'souveneirs' available featuring Anne Boleyn.  As an Anne supporter, I refuse to buy it - but this medal is absolutely stunning and well worth the price.  It's not often I flag up anything for sale, but this is worth every penny.  I ordered mine and am delighted with it.

Uncertain Proof - a film about the possible survival of Edward II

I first heard of this film on Kathryn’s ‘Edward II’ blog.  It was in production and that was all I heard about it.  So I was delighted to see it for sale in Berkeley Castle shop.  I bought it of course!  It tells the story of Manuel de Fieschi’s quest to find out what happened at Berkeley Castle in 1327.  In an interview with the screenwriter, A. G. Ford, on a second disc, the screenplay is first and foremost written as a piece of drama, about a conversation between the supposed Edward II and Manuel de Fieschi.   It was the discovery of a copy of Manuel de Fieschi’s letter that led to debate about the possible survival of Edward II, and how he lived out his life as a hermit in Italy.   So the film itself is not an exact account of what de Fieschi claimed. 

In this version, de Fieschi has attended the court of Edward II and seen him and his lover Hugh Despencer at court.  Later on, he claims to have been at Berkeley and heard the screams of Edward II.  These scenes are in flashback, and we have a young de Fieschi as a priest having heard the strange story of an English hermit who lives high on a remote mountain.  We don’t really know why de Fieschi is convinced the hermit is Edward – in fact, we just find out that he is desperate to be taken to see this hermit, and the isolation and bleakness of the hermit’s home dominates the first 20 minutes.   When he reaches the remains of an old farm inhabited by a woman who feeds the hermit, we learn about the life of self-imposed hardship of the hermit.  He lives in a disused pig-sty, which he locks from the inside, and he is therefore his own jailor.  He comes out at certain times to eat the bread and water left by the woman, with whom he has virtually no contact.  He has built his own altar and appears daily to worship there.  Fieschi is deliberately portrayed as an arrogant young man with little calling to the priesthood, and when the old man appears, he continually goads him for deserting his duty as king.  He cannot understand how someone who has lived as a king can now live like this.  The hermit goes about his business, washing, eating etc, whilst Fieschi rants about the life Edward led with Piers Gaveston (yes, he gets a mention!) and Hugh Despencer, reminding Edward of the awful death suffered by Despencer.  He talks about life at the court and kingly duty.  Eventually, the hermit, who has not admitted to being Edward II, decides to talk to the young priest and explains his reasoning.  He speculates what this Edward might say.  Basically, the old man longs for death, but will not take his life, and regrets nothing, except the death of the old porter – the first admission by the hermit that he is Edward II.  We are not able to witness their full conversation, but de Fieschi comes away much moved by the hermit’s story.  I have to admit, I found the film deeply moving as well – to think that Edward now lived this poor, remote life with nothing to look forward to but death.  There was no contact with anyone, and his life must have been dominated by the events of his reign.  It is of course only an interpretation, but one that shows great sympathy for the supposed Edward, and whilst I do not believe the ‘red hot poker story’ and strongly believe Edward survived, it made me question the misery of the survival he may have endured.  Well worth watching.