BBC History magazine - Ian Mortimer's response to Kathryn's book....

Kathryn Warner's marvellous Edward II book was re-viewed previously in BBC History magazine, and the reviewer, Professor Nicholas Vincent responded to Kathryn's work on the possible survival of Edward was 'entirely speculative'.    In the April edition of the magazine, historian Ian Mortimer has written a superb response to the review, praising Kathryn's research and telling us to look at the contemporary evidence rather than the later evidence by certain academics ( though obviously not those who think Edward spent his entire reign making out with Piers).

Mortimer wrote a terrific book, 'Medieval Intrigue' in which he challenges those academics who will not even consider the likely survival of Edward II, when there is plenty of contemporary evidence.  It's ironic in the week when Richard III was re-buried was all pomp and ceremony, where we've had Ricardians on TV protesting his innocence blaming Shakespeare for his tarnished reputation, a work of fiction, where there is plenty of contemporary evidence to condemn him,  and yet certain academics rely on chroniclers writing well after the death of Edward as their sources, and won't consider the contemporary evidence.

If only Shakespeare had written such a superb play about Edward II as he did with his pantomime villain Richard, we may well have had The Edward II Society fighting to find out his true story.  Richard has a lot to thank Shakespeare for;).

The Lost Chronicle' of Ralph of the 'Splendid Sunne'.

This post was inspired by a recent post on Kathryn Warner's brilliant Edward II website - Edward II makes out.....   Now, having read Kathryn's thoroughly re-searched new book on Edward II, I was amazed that she had over-looked chronicles and eminent professors who seemed to have access to documents not available anywhere else which prove that Edward II never had sexual relations with THAT woman, ie, his wife, and that he spent his reign 'making out' with Piers.

  So I did a little research and found the 'lost' chronicle of Ralph and the 'Splendid Sun' - and yes, here was the missing evidence!  Here are some quotes from it.


On Piers being made his squire, Prince Edward immediately 'ceased all princely activities and made out constantly with his new squire Piers'.

On the knighting of the Prince and Piers, 'the ceremony was delayed, on account of said Prince Edward making out with Piers'.

Here we have the evidence again - when Edward Ist lost his temper  when the Prince asked his father for Ponthieu for Piers.   'The Prince was loathe to continually make out with Piers in Langley, and asked his father for Ponthieu where they might make out in the sunshine'.   When the old king asked his son if he and Piers acted as brothers, 'the prince replieth - come on Pa, we make out whenever we get the chance!'.  No wonder Piers was banished.

On Piers being made Earl of Cornwall, Ralph tells us 'the new King, liking Cornwall and it's magnificent castle, made Piers the Earl, and said how he couldn't wait to make out with Piers in the castle, hopefully with some role-play as King Arthur and Sir Lancelot.  However, the new Earl demandeth that he playeth the role of King Arthur, and such was the king's lust to make out, he agreed'.

Here we have the news that Piers was left as regent while Edward II went to France to marry Isabella.  On his return, Edward leapt from his ship, crashed through the waves 'and to the shock of all around, began to make out in the surf with Piers'.  And at last we have the truth about what went on at the Coronation banquet.   The food was indeed inedible,  'it burnt to a said crisp, for none could start as the king was late, too busy making out the Earl of Cornwall'.  Far from being upset, Isabella breathed a sigh of relief  ' forsooth I am grateful to the handsome Piers, as I am only but 12 years of age.  He may make out with Piers as oft as he wishes, otherwise, he may appear a said pervert'.

And so it goes on - 'the king loveth to thatch ye old roof, and invite up Piers onto the roof to make out',  'the king liketh nothing better than to make out with Piers after a good day's ditch digging' and the king spent his time with the common people 'except when he made out with the said Piers, who demanded to make out only in luxury'.

According to Ralph, to save the king's blushes, Thomas of Lancaster omitted from the Ordinances 'the king must stop making out with Piers Gaveston non-stop - give someone else a chance'.  So now we know the real reason why Piers was banished!

So far, this is all I have been able to find.  I shall keep on researching this fascinating topic;)

What did Piers Gaveston look like?

How any times have I asked myself that question?  I find it incredibly frustrating that there is no physical description of Piers in his lifetime anywhere!  We're told about his arrogance, vanity, military skills, wit, gracefulness and good manners - but nothing about his physical appearance.   Undoubtedly, Edward II must surely have had a portrait/painting of him commissioned - possibly inter-grated into a mural or painting onto a wall of a palace.  Paintings from the time of Edward II are often crude in their portrayal.  Take this contemporary painting of Edward II.

At least we can see Edward had blonde hair and have some idea of his size and body shape.  Even a painting of Piers like this would tell us the same information - his hair colour and build.  Any paintings of Piers must have been destroyed after Edward's 'death' (or disappearance).  Either white-washed over of completely destroyed.  Of course, the best likeness for Piers would come from his tomb effigy - something else which frustrates me.

It's extraordinary that his father's tomb still has his effigy - even if it is in quite poor condition.  Edward II, however, would have ensured that Piers' tomb would have had a fine effigy, and when you see the effigy of the tomb of Edward II himself, it's clear that the artists of the time put more effort into 3D representations  than they did into paintings.

Of course Edward II was a king, and his son wanted a fitting tomb and effigy for his father.  But just look at the detail that has gone into the curl in the hair and the beard, as well as the serene expression on the king's face.  The writing on the face was carved by mischievous schoolboys in the 1800's - basically, graffiti.  Would Edward II himself commissioned such a fine effigy of Piers?  It seems more than likely that he did.  Although his father, Edward I, has no fine effigy on his tomb, Edward II was short of money when he ascended the throne, and there was little love lost between father and son anyway.  It was recorded that Edward held an elaborate funeral for Piers,  He spent a great deal of money on the tomb, and surely he would have had an effigy.   

Although we have no contemporary images of Piers, many Victorian artists reproduced what I call romanticised versions of what they thought historical personalities looked like.  So we have haunting portraits of Lady Jane Grey and the 'Princes in the Tower', and then we have this painting of Edward and Piers.

This painting is by the artist Marcus Stone, and was painted in 1872.  We don't even get to see Piers' face!  Just a highly amused Edward II, and undoubtedly a disapproving Queen Isabella and courtiers - and the back of Piers' head!  If only Piers' effigy was not destroyed, but lies somewhere, either underground, or wrongly thought of as someone else.


Btw, the BBC will be showing their new drama series Poldark on Sunday evening - with Kyle Soller playing Francis Poldark - Soller was the actor I saw playing Piers' at the National Theatre. 

Edward II and Neath Abbey

Neath Abbey was once the biggest abbey in Wales.  It was founded in 1129 on land given by Richard de Grenville to Savigniac monks, and in 1147, it became a house for Cistercian monks.  Like most religious orders, the Abbey was dissolved, and a Tudor manor house built amongst the ruins.    The site is now owned by CADW, and has recently featured as a backdrop for tv shows such as Dr. Who and Da Vinic's Demons.  On warm, sunny days people visit to walk through the vast grounds or climb the ruins.   I visited it last year, and was disappointed that there was no mention of one of the most dramatic events in history occurring there.  For it was here, on November 6, 1326, that Edward II and Hugh Despencer found themselves shortly before they were captured.   

Despencer, of course, held vast lands in Wales, including the impressive Caerphilly Castle, where Edward and Despencer sought refuge when Edward's Queen, Isabella, landed with an army to depose Edward.  Caerphilly Castle was a mighty fortress, and should easily have been able to hold out if under siege.  For reasons unknown, Edward and Hugh left Caerphilly for Neath Abbey.  It seems a foolhardy thing to do - leave a well-fortified castle for a religious house - but maybe Edward hoped the Abbey would provide him with sanctuary?  He sent the abbot to try to negotiate with Isabella, but when no compromise could be reached, Edward and Hugh set out to return to Caerphilly Castle.  It was on their return that Edward and Hugh were captured.  For many years afterwards, stories about Edward's possessions being 'stolen' or found around Neath Abbey have persisted.  There are stories of gold coins being found after being hidden in various nooks and crannies in the Abbey.  Rumour has it Edward had £30,000 with him.  And yet, visitors to Neath Abbey have no idea of this part of the Abbey's history, for no-where on the information boards is it mentioned.  How can such an important part of history be ignored?  Below are some of the pictures I took.

 Above - the Tudor Manor House.  Below are the ruins of the Abbey.

It's all Sharon Penman's fault......

I'm afraid I've neglected this blog for a few weeks, and I'm blaming Sharon Penman:)   On the recommendation of  Kasia , I started reading 'The Devil's Brood', and have been hooked on it.  It's over 800 pages long, but once you pick it up, it's difficult to put it down, and if you can't devote at least an hour session to it, then don't pick it up.  Having studied the Angevins at university over 20 years ago, it's been some time since I did any reading on them, apart from the odd King John article.  It was very nice to be re-united with them, even in fiction.  'The Devil's Brood' is extremely well written and absorbing, detailing the squabbles amongst Henry II and his sons.  They all have their flaws.  I still can't help feeling sorry for Henry II with his grasping, never-satisfied sons.  


2015 marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, and as expected, there will be a slew of new books on it.  I'm bracing myself for an onslaught of 'tyrannical' King John.  There's also a new book on William Marshal, 'The Greatest Knight: The remarkable life of William Marshal' by Thomas Asbridge, which I've just ordered. 


Magna Carta also features on the cover of the February issue of the BBC History magazine - and inside is a very good review of Kathryn Warner's   book on Edward II, by Nicholas Vincent, professor of medieval history at the University of East Anglia.


History Today magazine has an excellent article by Ian Mortimer on the DNA controversy of Richard III's remains see  BBC report on Richard III's DNA   Far from casting doubting on the paternity of John of Gaunt, Mortimer makes a convincing argument that the paternity of  Edward III's grandson, Richard of Conisbrough, the grandfather of Richard III, is far more questionable.


Hopefully a Piers-related post will follow soon!

An important anniversary I forgot......

I hadn't realised that this year marks the 700th anniversary of the burial of Piers Gaveston.  I'm indebted to Kathryn Warner for her superb report on it here 


It's an extraordinary story of Edward's devotion to Piers.  He must have spent a great deal of time, money and thought to Piers' funeral.  It contrasts with funeral plans for his father, Edward Ist.  Edward Ist requested his body be boiled, and his bones placed in a box and carried into battle against the Scots.  He did not want to be buried until the Scots had been subdued.   Inheriting a bankrupt treasury from his father, Edward II had no such plan, and buried his father in a plain tomb in Westminster Abbey. 


Piers resting place was at Langley Priory.   Some years later, the deposed king Richard II was buried there as well, before being re-interred at Westminster Abbey by Henry V.  The site has long since vanished, and my enquiries to the local history society lead me to believe there is now a public school built on the site.  I can only hope that Piers' remains lie undisturbed under the ground or that he was re-interred in the local church during the Reformation.  Knowing Edward, he must surely have given him a fine tomb - surely with an effigy?   I can but wonder what the inscription said.........

The Best Books of 2014

As usual, at the end/start of a year, it’s time for my ‘best books’ review post.  I don’t think there will be any surprise at my number 1 book of the year!  It’s a book I’ve been waiting years for.

1.  Kathryn Warner’s superb ‘Edward II: the unconventional King’.  Not only is it superbly researched and written, but it’s been a personal delight for me to share Kathryn’s journey to write her book, which has been floating around for a number of years, and getting it published.  Her dedication to research and uncover the truth and destroy the myths about Edward has all paid off.  I can't wait for the follow-up!
2. ‘Inside the Court of Henry VIII and his Six Wives’ by Lauren Mackay.  Not just another book about Henry and his wives – and there are so many of them – but the focus of this book focuses on the writings of the Spanish ambassador Eustace Chapuys.  We’re so used to reading quotes by Chapuys in biographies of Henry that it is refreshing to find out about the man behind the quotes.  I particularly enjoyed reading about his lifestyle and his views on the politics of Henry’s court – particularly Thomas Cromwell and the Duke of Norfolk.  I also enjoyed his concerns and thoughts on Princess Mary – he clearly had worries about her personality and what it would mean for her.
3. ‘Richard III – the king in the car park’ by Terry Breveton.  A welcome relief from all the ‘poor Richard III’ books currently out.  Breveton uses sources from Welsh history – yes, I know they are likely to be pro-Henry Tudor – which are rarely used and has translated them.  He also points out the romantic prose used in many pro-Richard books used to manipulate readers as well as downright untruths. 
4. Last Christmas, someone bought me Conn Iggulden’s ‘Wars of the Roses – Stormbird’.  I don’t read a lot of historical fiction, and it wasn’t until the summer that I started reading this book.  I absolutely loved it!  The life of the knights and ‘ordinary soldiers’ is very detailed in sometimes quite gruesome detail.  I like his take on the rebellious leader Jack Cade, and I love the character of Derry Brewer, the king’s spymaster.
5. So it’s no surprise that I bought the follow-up ‘Trinity’, and again, I was hooked from the first chapter.  It’s the descriptions of life in the London streets, the countryside, and the squalor that the ordinary folk endure.  Iggulden has a sympathetic view of Henry VI, and still manages to gain sympathy for a frustrated Margaret of Anjou.  And once again, Derry Brewer continues to out-fox the Duke of York, who is not as ambitious for the crown as he is portrayed in other novels.  Can’t wait for part 3!
6. Thomas Cromwell seems to be the man of the moment, with the popularity of ‘Wolf Hall’ and ‘Bring up the bodies’.  Tracey Borman’s biography is the pick of the bunch of the recent Cromwell biographies. 
7. ‘The Third Plantagenet – George, Duke of Clarence’, by John Ashdown-Hill.  Along with King John, one of history’s bad boys – Shakespeare’s ‘False, fleeting, perjured Clarence’.  But was he any different from his brothers Edward and Richard?  Not in my opinion.  He just wasn’t as clever. Clarence had the misfortune of being Edward IV’s heir for a number of years, and was spoiled by his doting mother.  But he seems to have been a good master to his servants and tenants, and a good husband to his wife Isabel.   

For Christmas this year, I got Helen Castor’s ‘Joan of Arc’, and Sharon Penman’s ‘Devil’s Brood’, which will no doubt thrill my fellow blogger – Kasia    - I’m on page 216 and enjoying every page of it! 

Happy New Year to all!