August Mixed Bag

I'm afraid I've been on holiday for a good part of August so haven't done much blogging.  And today's post is just a short one.  Following on from my praise of Leanda de Lisle's article defending Margaret Beaufort, I read another interesting article on Susan Higginbotham's blog  History Refreshed, in which she discusses the 'slut shaming' .  Hadn't heard the term before, but I'll quote Susan's context for using it in her post on Catherine of Valois's reputation -

I find this willingness to stain the reputation of historical women on such flimsy evidence disheartening, particularly when the writer doing this academic version of “slut shaming” is an accredited historian. I find it even more disheartening when the author is someone dedicated to restoring the good name of another historical figure, Richard III.

I completely agree with Susan.  Many blogs have commented on the BBC, erm, 'drama' 'The White Queen', my favourite being the interpretation being on A Neville Feast blog.  Plus, newspapers have had a field day pointing out metal handrails on stairs, drainpipes in full view, zips on costumes etc.  As well as showing the drama, the BBC showed 2 documentaries hosted by Philippa Gregory called 'The Real White Queen and her rivals'.   Except it wasn't 'the real' story of these women - just an attempt to pass Gregory's fiction off as fact.  And what made it worse was the inclusion of several notable historians giving their views.  They didn't comment on controversial areas of Gregory's fiction, but to me, their inclusion seemed to be used by the BBC to legitimise Gregory's views.  And what made me particularly annoyed was the 'discussion' on Elizabeth of York and her 'affair' with her uncle, Richard III.  Gregory maintains that Henry VII waited 5 months before marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure she was not pregnant by her uncle Richard - a case of 'slut shaming'.  The obvious reason Henry VII waited was because he didn't want it to look as though he owed his crown to Elizabeth of York.  He didn't want them to be seen as 'joint sovereigns'.  Of course he hoped the marriage would reconcile the Houses of York and Lancaster - but there was no doubt in his mind that he was king by right, and his claim had nothing to do with his wife.  Makes much more sense than waiting to see if Elizabeth was pregnant by Uncle Richard!

Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had one of the happiest royal marriages.  They did not marry for love, but there seems to have been genuine growing  affection between them throughout their marriage, and Henry was devastated when she died.  He could - and probably should - have re-married, and although he searched for another wife, he never married again. 


Onto another Queen - this time, Mary, Queen of Scots.  I have just visited Edinburgh, and the National Museum of Scotland, has a superb exhibition on Mary.  here's the blurb from their website -

Created especially for the National Museum of Scotland and showing only in Edinburgh, the exhibition provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to discover much that has been written and speculated about Mary, one of the most charismatic monarchs of all time. Taking a fresh, innovative approach, using jewels, textiles, furniture, documents and portraits, Mary’s dramatic story and this fascinating period in Scottish history is explored in detail.
By drawing together rare objects intimately connected with Mary Stewart, as well as key loans from public and private collections, the exhibition features an array of treasures never before seen together, alongside new research.

I had only a short time in Edinburgh - but it still took me 2 hours to see the exhibition.  It's well worth a visit, and will be there until November.  It's the artefacts that make the exhibition for me.  Who knows when such a collection will be shown again?  The exhibition is balanced and examines the evidence available to try unravel the complications of Mary's life.

Superb article by Leanda de Lisle

I've been on holiday the last few weeks and have once again neglected this blog.  I've been stung into action today after reading a superb article by Leanda de Lisle in today's Daily Express newspaper.  I read de Lisle's book on Lady Jane Grey, which dealt with many of the myths that grew up surrounding Jane's short life, which I'd highly recommend.  I'm looking forward to her new book 'Tudor: The Family Story'. The article concerns the portrayal of Margaret Beaufort in the BBC's 'historical drama' (hmmm) 'The White Queen', which has certainly made me very angry.  Leanda de Lisle encapsulates exactly how I feel and has written fantastic article in defence of Margaret and the prejudices she has faced over the centuries.  Here's part of the article -

Don't always blame the mothers

WITH the kitsch BBC drama The White Queen moving to its conclusion Margaret Beaufort is the villainess viewers love to hate.

A frigid fanatic in high necklines she is the ultimate tiger mother. A woman willing even to commit child murder as she plots her son Henry Tudor's path to the throne.
But this is a depiction shaped by centuries of sexual and religious bigotry and by our still ambivalent attitudes to powerful women.

Female historians and novelists may claim a sisterly empathy for historical women but all too many of them are willing to plunder misogynistic myths to write their lives. And Margaret Beaufort is not their only victim.

In the Tudor period and for centuries afterwards it was considered wrong and unnatural for women to wield power. It followed that the kind of woman who sought power was also unnatural - so how to depict them? Well what could be more unnatural, more against a woman's proper nature than the abuse of children?

It seems no coincidence that Margaret Beaufort stands accused of planning the deaths of the White Queen's young sons, the so-called princes in the Tower, to clear the path for Henry Tudor to be king. The irony is that the real Margaret Beaufort was what we would consider to be an abused child. She was married at 12 and was so small and slight that her son's birth when she was 13 nearly killed her. She was unable to have further children and for the next 25 years Margaret was a pawn and victim of vicious power politics.


You can read the rest of the article by clicking on the following link -

Don't always blame the mothers....

My Top 10 things to see/do at the Tower of London

Whenever I am in London, I never seem to be able to pass up a visit to the Tower of London.  I seem to be drawn to it - it's definitely my most favourite place to visit.  This weekend, I found myself there again - even if it was uncomfortably hot.  The Tower looked superb!

So, here is my list of Top 10 things to do/see at the Tower of London.

1.  The chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula is a MUST.   It's on the Yeoman Warder tour, and their knowledge is invaluable.  You are not allowed inside on your own, until after 4pm.  It contains the remains of many of those executed at the Tower, although not all the remains have been identified.  Unfortunately, you are not allowed to approach the altar, where the remains of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, amongst others, have been identified and marked with a plaque.

2.  The Yeoman Warder tours are great fun!  They are very entertaining and the Warders delight in telling gruesome tales.  They are not always 100 % accurate - howlers include Anne Boleyn's remains being identified by the legendary '6th finger' on her hand, and Thomas Culpepper hearing Catherine Howard proclaim her love for him from the scaffold.  I always make a point of going on these tours, no matter how many times I have heard the stories.

3.  The White Tower - the oldest part of the Tower, it really is magnificent.  It contains the 'Line of Kings', which is a set of life size figurines of past monarchs and a set of their horses.  They date from around the 17th century, so interpretations of the monarchs are not very accurate.  But it is an amazing sight!   There are suits of armour worn by Henry VIII and other monarchs, on view.  Modern artifacts include the chair on which the German spy Josef Jakobs was executed in 1941 - the last prisoner to be executed at the Tower. 

4.  The Beauchamp Tower - inside this Tower is an exhibition on prisoners in the Tower, which has been there for absolutely ages!  However, the 'must see' in this Tower are the walls, which contain inscriptions by prisoners in the Tower.  Each has been identified as much as possible.  There are two engravings of 'Jane' on the walls, which probably refer to supporters of Lady Jane Grey.  The most spectacular is the carving commissioned by John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland for his family.

 

5.  The Wakefield Tower - as accessed through the Medieval Palace.   This octagonal room contains a small chapel with a commemorative plaque to King Henry VI, who was allegedly murdered here after the death of his son at the Battle of Tewkesbury. 

6.  The Bloody Tower - probably one of the most visited part of the Tower, thanks to its association with the 'princes in the Tower'  legend.  Formerly the Garden Tower, it gained it's notorious name in late Elizabethan times after it was identified as the Tower in which the sons of Edward IV were imprisoned and later murdered on the orders of their uncle, Richard III.  Other candidates have been mentioned as possible murderers,  and you can vote inside once you have considered the evidence.  Richard III is comfortably in the lead.  There's also an exhibition on Sir Walter Raleigh's life as a prisoner, as well as the strange case of Thomas Overbury, who was poisoned inside the Tower as he awaited trial in the reign of James 1st.

7.  The execution spot - ok, it's not very accurate, but it does contain a memorial to those prisoners executed inside the Tower, on Tower green - most prisoners were removed from the Tower and executed on Tower Hill, but those deemed 'dangerous/troublesome/embarrassing to the monarch' were executed near to where the memorial is located.  It's been replaced in recent years with a glass effect sculpture.  I admit it can look a bit, erm, tacky. 

 

 

8.   The Ravens - legend has it that if the ravens ever leave the Tower, it will fall and with it the monarchy.   Six to nine ravens are in residence, and they have a long life span.  They have their wings clipped and are often seen hopping around the Tower.           

 

 

                                             

 

 

9.    The Bowyer Tower - I've blogged about this Tower in the past - it's tucked away behind the Jewel house, and contains a small exhibition on George, Duke of Clarence, allegedly executed in a barrel of malmsey by his brother Edward IV.                    

 

10.  The role-play characters which pop up frequently throughout the day.  There's no planned itinerary - just catch them when you can.     Here's the infamous 'Judge Jefferies'.                                  

 

                                                                  

And here's what is not open to the public - but really should be!  The top of the Beauchamp Tower, in which now live the Yeoman Warders, The Queens House, (built for Anne Boleyn but unfinished during her reign.  Prisoners include Katherine Howard, Lady Jane Grey, Guy Fawkes and Rudolf Hesse), the Bell Tower.  The Bell Tower is divided by a floor but you cannot access both floors from inside the Bell Tower - there are no stairs.  Imprisoned here were Thomas More, Thomas Fisher and  Elizabeth Ist as a princess.  As far as I can recall, this Tower does open very rarely - in all my many visits, it's only been opened once.  Number 11 would be the Medieval palace - perhaps I should make it joint 10th?   I've also blogged about this in the past.  And, amazingly, not on my list are the crown jewels - I've seen them about 3 times, but they hold very little interest for me.

Here's the official link to the Tower website -

TowerOfLondon

June 19th - death of Piers Gaveston

My last post dealt with the capture of Piers by the Earl of Warwick.  Piers must surely have known that his fate was sealed.  On the morning of June 19th, Piers was taken from Warwick Castle some 2 miles towards Kenilworth.  It seems Thomas of Lancaster wanted Piers executed on his lands, not Warwick's.  Warwick himself did not attend the execution - no reason is given.  Lancaster waited whilst Piers was lead to the top of Blacklow Hill, where he was slain by 2 Welshmen - one plunged his sword into Piers' body, whilst the other cut off his head.  Lancaster insisted on seeing the head to ensure Piers was dead.  I do wonder why neither Warwick or Lancaster didn't observe the execution - or rather murder - of Piers.  After all, they hated him and his insulting nick-names for them.  Did they have a pang of conscience?  Unlikely, but it was one thing to condemn him to death in a farce of a trial and then to witness it.  I'm also intrigued as to why neither took charge of his body.  Lancaster and his retainers just left it there.  One chronicle, the Annales Londonienses, says 4 shoemakers recovered it, sewed the head back on, and took it on a ladder to the Earl of Warwick, who refused to admit it.  They then took it back to Blacklow Hill, where some Dominican Friars took care of it and returned it to the king at Oxford.  It was to be some time before Edward could bury his beloved Piers, who had died excommunicate.  

I shall raise a glass to Piers, and I hope Kathryn doesn't mind me posting her tribute to Piers from her blog - I can't think of a better one.

Piers Gaveston, a Notorious Royal Favourite


Piers Gaveston - only about thirty at the time of his death - was by no means a vicious or cruel man. He was handsome, athletic, bright, flamboyant, arrogant, and supremely confident (over-confident). He gave Edward the confidence that the young king lacked. In later centuries, Piers was often used as a salutary warning against kings' favourites, which has tended to obscure his own personality. He was about as far from the stereotypical image of him as an effeminate, perfumed court fop as it's possible to be: he was a very successful military leader in Ireland, King of the Joust, who could knock any man off his horse almost at will, a soldier as early as 1297 when he might only have been fourteen, or probably sixteen at the most.

It's difficult to see what he did to merit the death penalty, and I find it easy to imagine that the men who killed him were horrified by later events, when Piers was replaced in Edward's affections by men who were far worse.

A ruby worth the staggering sum of £1000 - perhaps a million or two in modern money - was found on Piers' body after his death. He was also famous for owning silver forks, for eating pears. Let it never be said that the man was lacking in style.

Countdown to the death of Piers Gaveston

In my last post, I dealt with the capture of Piers Gaveston after he surrendered to, amongst other, Amyer de Valance, the Earl of Pembroke.  He had surrendered on good terms - he was taken to York where Edward II was, and there an agreement was made that the barons would negotiate with Edward II to reach some sort of agreement, and if no agreement was made, Piers was to be returned to Scarborough by August 1st.   At the worst, he probably expected another exile.  Pembroke swore an oath that Piers would stay in his custody and that he would protect him,  agreeing to forfeit all of his property if any harm were to befall him.  So favourable were the terms of his surrender, that one comtemporary chronicle described the arrangement as the virtual submission of the nobles to Edward and Piers. There were also rumours that Edward had given Pembroke £1,000 to keep Piers safe.    Pembroke decided to head south.

On June 9th, Pembroke reached Deddington in Oxfordshire.  He made arrangements for Piers to stay at the rector's house, leaving him with a small retinue of guards.  Pembroke then headed to his manor at Bampton, so that he could visit his wife.  I wonder why he didn't take Piers with him?  It was a huge mistake on Pembroke's part.  Somehow, Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, and Piers' sworn enemy - his 'black dog of Arden' - learned of the plans and pounced.  The chronicler of Vita Edwardi Secundi describes what happened.

'Coming to the village early one Saturday, he entered the gate of the courtyard and surrounded the chamber.  Then the earl called out in a loud voice: 'Arise traitor, thou art taken'.  When Piers heard this, seeing that the earl was there with a superior force and that his own guard did not resist, he dressed himself and came down.  In this fashion Piers was taken and led forth not as an earl but as a thief; and he who used to ride on a palfrey is now forced to go on foot.

When they had left the village behind a little, the earl ordered piers to be given a nag that they might proceed more quickly.  Blaring trumpets followed Piers and the horrid cry of the populance.  They had taken off his belt of knighthood, and asa thief and traitor, he was taken to Warwick, and coming there was cast into prison.  He whom Piers called Warwick the Dog has now bound Piers with chains'.

Falling into the hand of Warwick was the worst think that could have happened to Piers - and I'm sure he recognised this.  Pembroke's role in the affair has been questioned - did he collude with Warwick?  By his actions after the death of Piers, I very much doubt it.  He had sworn an oath to keep Piers safe, and he to must have realised the danger of Piers falling into Warwick's clutches.  Warwick no doubt relished humiliating Piers, gleefully leading him on foot from Deddington, and much as he would have liked to make Piers walk the whole way, he needed to make all haste to get Piers inside Warwick castle, and hence placed Piers on 'a nag'. 

Warwick castle has a dungeon which you can visit, and a tower above it.  I would like to think of Piers being kept in the tower, but knowing how vindictive Warwick could be, he probably placed him in the dungeon. 

Pembroke was furious at what what Warwick had done, and did his best to try to regain custody of Piers.  Warwick seems to have bided his time until he could consult with some of the other magnates.  Pembroke appealed to Piers' brother-in-law, Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, to intercede.  Gloucester's response was defend Warwick's actions and inform Pembroke 'He did this with our aid and counsel'.  One can only imagine how Edward II must have felt. 

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, arrived at Warwick alongside other nobles, to decide Piers' fate.  Lancaster clearly wanted Piers dead - 'while he lives there will be no safe peace in the realm of England'.  Piers was given a 'show trial', with the outcome already decided.  Lancaster and Warwick merely made a pretence of giving Piers his say.  The decision was made, and Piers sentenced to death.  The Vita describes how Piers was given the news. Warwick

 'sent a sharp-tongued message to Piers, telling him to look to his soul, because this was the last day he would see on earth.   (Piers replied)  'Oh! Where are the presents that brought me so many intimate friends, and with which I had thought to have sufficient power?  Where are my friends, in whom was my trust, the protection of my body, and the whole hope of my safety.......They has promised to stand by me in war, to suffer imprisonment, and not to shun death.  Indeed my pride, the arrogance that one single promise of theirs is nourished, the king's favour and the king's court, have brought me to this sorry plight.  I have no help, every remedy is vain, let the will of the earls be done'.

The Vita clearly believes Piers' rise and downfall was the result of patronage.  The sentence was to be carried out on June 19th.

Source: 'Piers Gaveston, Politics and Patronage in the reign of Edward II'. 

May 19th - anniversary of the day Piers Gaveston surrendered at Scarborough Castle.

After returning from his third exile in early January, 1312, (or perhaps even earlier, at Christmas 1311), it would only be a matter of time before Piers Gaveston faced the wrath of the nobles.  He had, in total, been banished 3 times, and the last time, the Vita had accused him of  leading the king astray and having  'counselled him badly and persuaded him deceitfully and in many ways to do evil…Piers Gaveston, as a public enemy of the king and of the kingdom, shall be utterly cast out and exiled, not only from England, but from Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Gascony, and from every land as well beyond the sea as on this side of the sea subject to the lordship of the king of England, for ever and without return.'   Piers probably returned to see his newly born daughter Joan, and his wife, Margaret de Clare.  Naturally, a reunion with Edward II was on the cards, meeting probably at Knaresborough.  The nobles were enraged, particularly when Edward revoked the judgement against Piers and restored his lands and titles.   They prepared for war.

In early May, Piers and Edward parted.  Edward headed for York, whilst Piers headed for Scarborough castle which he had begun to prepare for a siege.  The siege did not last long, and Piers surrendered to, amongst others,  Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke.   The terms of the surrender were favourable to Piers.  Pembroke would take Piers to York, where the barons would negotiate with the king. If an agreement could not be reached by 1 August, Piers would be allowed to return to Scarborough. An oath to guarantee Piers' safety.    After an initial meeting with the king in York, Piers was left in the custody of Pembroke, who escorted him south for safekeeping.   From then, things were about to go tragically wrong.

There is a legend that the ghost of a headless Piers haunts Scarborough Castle and tries to 'push' visitors over the battlements.   Hmmmm, I just can't imagine Piers wanting to appear without his handsome head!

Scarborough Castle

Suzannah Lipscomb's theories on Anne Boleyn

The highlight of the BBC's Talk Tudor day for me was Suzannah Lipscomb's theory on the fall of Anne Boleyn.  Later this month the BBC will show a drama/documentary on Anne's fall in which Suzannah takes part, and she recently wrote the cover article for April's BBC History magazine on Anne Boleyn.  This post is a short precis on the theories highlighted by Suzannah.

1.  That Anne was actually guilty.  There is no credible evidence for this, and the only historian who seriously considers Anne to be guilty is G W Bernard.  His recent book was titled 'Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions'.  Snappy title, but with weak arguments for Anne's guilt.  Bernard seems to be saying there was 'no smoke without fire' and thus condemns Anne.  Even though the dates Anne was supposed to have committed adultery prove it impossible for her to have done so, Bernard even tries to make the argument that the actual dates don't really matter.

2.  Thomas Cromwell conspired with the Seymours to displace Anne with Jane Seymour, and Anne's fall was the result of faction.   Anne supposedly found out that Cromwell was syphoning off money from dissolved monasteries.  This theory was the foundation of the recent Howard Brenton play 'Anne Boleyn'.  Lipscomb discards this theory in that she feels it represents Henry as a king easily manipulated by his ministers and courtiers.

3.  That Henry had tired of Anne, especially after her recent miscarriages, (although we don't know how many she had, and the report that the last one had been deformed can be discounted as being invented by the anti-Elizabeth  Catholic Nicholas Sander), fallen in love with Jane Seymour and asked Thomas Cromwell to rid him of Anne.  This is the theory that I have always subscribed to.  I think Anne's age, and I think she was born in 1502, would have been against her in 1536, and having miscarried on possibly as many as 3 babies,  Henry had tired of her, and his infatuation burnt out, decided to break from her.  He didn't want to jeopardise any future children with Jane Seymour, and so it wasn't enough for Anne to be divorced, she had to die.  She would never have gone quietly.  The fact that Henry would allow himself to be seen as a cuckolded husband I put down to the choice and number of victims - that Anne was so full of lust, and so vile, no man was safe from her - a lowly musician, Henry's friends, and worst of all, her own brother.

4.  Lipscomb believes that having been told by Thomas Cromwell there was gossip about his Queen, spread by Elizabeth, Lady Worcester, Henry instructed Cromwell to investigate, with the warning that should the gossip be untrue, he would destroy those who had spread malicious stories about Anne.  This was certainly an incentive for Cromwell to 'find' evidence.  What I find interesting about this theory is Lipscomb's take on Jane Seymour.  There is evidence that Henry paid court to ladies of the court, and may have taken some as his mistress.  Jane Seymour, by rejecting Henry in the first instance, became an idealised love for Henry - in the game of courtly love.  Lipscomb believes Henry was not serious about her.  And there is evidence that Anne's fall was sudden - and she had been in as much favour as ever with Henry in April 1536.  Having been charged with finding evidence against Anne on pain of death, Cromwell made certain he found it, even if he invented it.  The crux of Lipscomb's argument is the fall-out Anne had with Henry Norris, one of Henry's loyal friends.  Chiding him for not marrying one of her ladies, Anne is reported to have said 'you look for dead men's shoes, for if ought came to the king, you would look to have me'.  Playing her own games of courtly love, Anne had gone too far.  Norris was appalled at what she said.  Anne herself regretted what she had said in the Tower.  It was treason to even 'imagine' the king's death, whilst Anne had actually spoken of it.  It is this conversation that Lipscomb feels tipped Henry over the edge.  After abruptly leaving the May day celebrations, Henry questioned Norris himself - there is a story he even offered Norris his life if he confessed.  Norris would not.  Lipscomb feels that this conversation did not convince Henry - in fact, it had the opposite effect, and he became convinced Anne was guilty.  Lipscomb feels that Henry married Jane Seymour on the re-bound - he was certainly heard to regret his marriage when commenting there were other beautiful ladies at the court and he had married too hastily.  Hmmm, so Henry could play courtly love games, but not Anne!

Despite the countless books, films, tv programmes, we still don't know why Anne Boleyn fell.  Evidence has either been destroyed or lost.  I still think theory number 3 the most obvious, but look forward to reading more about theory number 4.  I asked Suzannah Lipscomb if she intended to write her own book on Anne Boleyn, but she said no.  I really think she should!