tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post5943306452545866694..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: Marguerite Of France (2)Kathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-90316565125629870612014-01-15T21:46:49.889+00:002014-01-15T21:46:49.889+00:00Thank you, Kathryn, for the wonderful, informative...Thank you, Kathryn, for the wonderful, informative response! It never occurred to me that Philip might have felt hostility toward Piers that was unrelated to Isabella. However, since I'd read that Arnaud was held in custody by Charles of Valois while a hostage, I've wondered if there wasn't tension between Charles and Piers at the coronation. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I don't have the Chaplais book. I wanted to order it two years ago along with another relatively recent biography of Piers. But they were both so expensive! All I have is Dodge, which I love for its visual details--clothes, jewels, tapestries, food and military requisitions--but not for its unkind treatment of Edward and Piers.<br /><br />I agree that Marguerite and Edward don't appear to have been very close. (Another myth blasted, but not one in which I held an emotional investment.) I hope Edward found a "good mother" in Agnes de Valence, just as Piers found a father in John of Richmond.<br /><br />Of course, Brandy Purdy provided a different explanation of Piers' relationship with John, which reminds me of a line from the MTV cartoon version of "Aeon Flux". In it she is told, I believe by her nemesis/lover, Trevor Goodchild, "Your mind has a gutter all its own."<br /><br />Also, I must correct a statement I made in the e-mail I sent you yesterday. I was wrong. "Killer Queens" and "She Wolves" are two different shows! You doubtlessly know that, but I found the latter documentary during a search last night and also forced myself to watch the rest of the former production. Again, ". . . DAMN."<br /><br />Thank you once more for taking the time to write me an "anonymous" reply. I've learned so much from your marvelous posts and your responses to my endless questions!MRatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-13211300347739792072014-01-14T14:10:55.868+00:002014-01-14T14:10:55.868+00:00Wretched Blogger has not let me sign into my accou...Wretched Blogger has not let me sign into my account all day, so I'm having to post anonymously. Kathryn here. ;-)<br /><br />Pierre Chaplais's book about Piers discusses the opposition issue. There's a newsletter of 14 May 1308 which states Philip IV's opposition to Piers directly (it's cited in the original Latin in John Maddicott's bio of Thomas of Lancaster). I'm sure the £40,000 and the uncles story are at least grossly exaggerated, if not an outright invention, but Philip's hostility to Piers does seem to be apparent from the newsletter. Pierre Chaplais argues however, and I agree, that it had little if anything to do with Isabella, but was rooted in Philip's anxiety that Edward was still intending to grant his county of Ponthieu to Piers. Chaplais further points out that Piers' father had escaped from Philip's custody when he was being held as a hostage for Edward I, and that Piers had served against the French in Flanders in 1297. Philip therefore did have legitimate reasons for disliking Piers and his family which had nothing to do with Isabella.<br /><br />Edward and Philip's relationship was complex. Possibly they disliked each other personally. As for Marguerite, I'm not sure. A lot of modern writers have assumed that she and Edward were very close, but honestly I don't see anything in their relationship that goes beyond the conventional and purely formal. Of course he asked her to intervene with his father on Piers' behalf in 1305; she was the obvious person. And of course they gave each other gifts at New Year, also purely conventional. After Edward's accession, they don't seem to have bothered with each other much, as far as I can see. There's a rather poignant letter from (I think) 1304/05 where Edward asked his kinswoman Agnes de Valence to be his 'good mother' and declared that he would be an obedient loving son to her. This indicates to me that he wasn't getting that kind of affection from Marguerite (understandable of course, given the small age difference between them), and that Edward needed maternal love. Kathrynhttp://edwardthesecond.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-28987297756191659042014-01-13T21:59:44.635+00:002014-01-13T21:59:44.635+00:00Oh, please forgive me, but I'm confused again!...Oh, please forgive me, but I'm confused again! <br /><br />I thought the legend of Philip IV's opposition to Piers on Isabella's behalf had been dispelled in subsequent posts. And even the offense allegedly taken by her uncles at the coronation was only invented by chroniclers who imagined it should have been that way. At least the staggering amount of £40,000 that Philip and Marguerite supposedly offered to Piers' enemies must surely be an exaggeration. <br /><br />As I wrote today in a comment on your "January Anniversaries" post, I guess I'm just not interpreting the facts correctly. But I'm trying, believe me!<br /><br />If you should find a moment to straighten me out regarding your views on the Edward/Isabella/Philip IV interrelationship, please help. I thought I understood and agreed with your stance on it.<br /><br />However, if your muse speaks to you, take that time to write instead. I'm curious! What (wheedled MRats relentlessly) do you plan to call the novel? Or have you decided yet?MRatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-59080001212521865892014-01-12T16:09:59.172+00:002014-01-12T16:09:59.172+00:00I'm almost certain that Edward I didn't se...I'm almost certain that Edward I didn't send Marguerite to treat with Wallace. It seems a really odd thing to do, to send the queen of all people to talk to a knight. I'm pretty sure it's an invention of later centuries, maybe Blind Harry.<br /><br />Hmmm, am confused about Berkhamsted now ;-) Not sure whose hands it was in in 1307. Must check.<br /><br />It does seem that Marguerite was opposed to Piers in 1308, taking her brother Philip IV's side against him, and supposedly even funding the opposition to him. That's one thing I imagine Edward would have found it hard to forgive her for. But yes, her absence from court for the ten years until her death in Feb 1308 might just indicate a quiet, retiring personality.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-12028126288056033452014-01-12T10:24:12.140+00:002014-01-12T10:24:12.140+00:00I'm skipping ahead again, this time to ask a q...I'm skipping ahead again, this time to ask a question prompted by the "Braveheart" story notes on AMC last week. The "pop up" on the television screen had already dispelled the "Gibsonian Myth" that Isabella ever even met Wallace, explaining that she was still a child in France at the time. :-) But a later note stated that even though Edward I did not send his daughter-in-law to treat with Wallace, he did send his Queen. I'm not too familiar with the facts of the reign, but I've read about the events that took place from the time of Edward II's birth until the end. I don't remember finding that anywhere. Is it true?<br /><br />Also, is there a possibility that Edward II never granted Berkhamsted Castle to Piers in the first place, even though it traditionally belonged to the earldom of Cornwall? (I noticed you used the words "seems to have".)<br /><br />Until Gilbert de Clare inherited Gloucester, he may have remained the ward of Queen Marguerite. Though I'm not certain if the higher nobility followed the traditions of the barons, I read about the rituals that proceeded a wedding in "Life on a Mediaeval Barony" by William Stearns Davis. If the bride's father was no longer living, Davis wrote that the honor of giving the bride away fell to the eldest son. As the author of the book describes it, Margaret would have ridden a splendidly caparisoned mount which would be lead by her brother to the steps of the church where Gilbert would then have presented her to Piers. Edward's gift of a palfrey worth £20 to Margaret suggests the bridal procession took place. (I know that even the Kings and Queens observed the formality of a public ceremony before the private one at the alter.) It's difficult to find any resources to cross-reference the information in the book. But, if Gilbert was called upon to perform this office in his father's place, and he was still in Marguerite's household, isn't it feasable that the vows were exchanged in one of the former Queen's castles? <br /><br />It appears to me that Marguerite wanted to retire from life. I've read that after his father's death Edward asked her if she would like for him to find her another husband. However, she replied, "When Edward died all men died for me." If that's true, there may have been no enmity between her and her stepson at all. I think the fact that she was in mourning explains her absence from court. (Though she's listed as one of those present for the birth of the future Edward III, Who Was Definitely, Beyond A Doubt, The Son Of Edward II.) And while it appears that she failed her niece by not being present to offer advice, I agree with Anerje's remark that Marguerite might not have felt there was a need to give any. From what I've gathered from your posts on the subject, Edward treated Isabella with kindness and all the respect due her station.MRatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-90155998495702161972010-07-29T13:05:03.156+01:002010-07-29T13:05:03.156+01:00Anerje, that's interesting about Cornwall supp...Anerje, that's interesting about Cornwall supposedly being a 'royal' earldom, isn't it. Before Piers, it had been granted to Henry III's brother Richard and nephew Edmund, and before that - you have to go right back to one of Henry I's illegitimate sons in the early 1100s. This hardly seems to me to be sufficient to say that Cornwall had 'always' been a royal earldom. It was later, after Edward III granted it to his eldest son. I think it suited Piers, too - and yes, maybe Marguerite knew or suspected that Ed didn't mean anything fraternal... ;-)<br /><br />Gabriele, very true, and this was the first time for centuries in England that the dowager queen wasn't the reigning king's mother, so Marguerite had no precedent for how to behave. Marrying a 60-year-old who already had an heir was hardly a great match for a king's daughter, was it?Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-66142825546114891792010-07-28T02:10:22.686+01:002010-07-28T02:10:22.686+01:00Maybe she felt that she had no real position at co...Maybe she felt that she had no real position at court and therefore retired. Edward had long since established his own court and didn't consider finding a place for a dowager queen. It's one of the disadvantages of being married to a much older man with already grown up childre. She couldn't become regent or something. And surely Piers didn't help in that Ed focussed so much on him.<br /><br />BTW, I tried my hands at some geneaology in my blog as well. :)Gabriele Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205770868139083575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-72148641058274313722010-07-26T18:48:04.746+01:002010-07-26T18:48:04.746+01:00yes Kathryn, Cornwall is reckoned to be a 'roy...yes Kathryn, Cornwall is reckoned to be a 'royal title', and hence the comment has been made it should have gone to a member of the royal family. I take your point. I do think Earl of Cornwall suited Piers though;> Do you think Marguerite might have been annoyed with Edward referring to Piers as his 'brother'? After all, she had given him 2 half-brothers. Or maybe she knew Edward meant something completely different using the phrase to Piers;>Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-54251714799988502422010-07-26T09:09:23.909+01:002010-07-26T09:09:23.909+01:00Anerje, thanks for your very perceptive and intere...Anerje, thanks for your very perceptive and interesting points. I'm sure you're right about Marguerite being concerned for her sons, given Edward's infatuation with Piers; I just wanted to get in the earldom of Cornwall situation because poor Edward is so often slated for ignoring his father's wishes and his brothers' interests in the matter, and it's not fair, and rather a sore point with me! :-)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-82685240182479718952010-07-25T20:22:46.261+01:002010-07-25T20:22:46.261+01:00Enjoyable post Kathryn, thanks. I would think the...Enjoyable post Kathryn, thanks. I would think the cooling of the relationship with Edward over Piers had more to do with her own sons possibly missing out than concern for her niece Isabella. Although there's no evidence the title of Cornwall was meant for either of her sons, she must surely have hoped that they would find favour, titles and riches from their half-brother. And of course, until Isabella bore a son, they were the heirs to the crown. With Edward as besotted as he was with Piers, maybe Marguerite felt her sons were missing out? Knowing Edward as she did, I'm sure she knew he would treat Isabella well, even if he wasn't in love with her. She herself had married for duty, and would expect Isabella to do the same. She must have understood that a 12 year old girl would hold little interest for Edward, whatever his sexuality, and that when the time came for them to live as 'man and wife', Edward would do his duty.Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-32917639075253851442010-07-25T16:20:23.758+01:002010-07-25T16:20:23.758+01:00She does, doesn't she? (Shame her niece Isabe...She does, doesn't she? (Shame her niece Isabella wasn't more like her, really.) I dare say a large part of the blame for their cooling relationship can be laid at Edward's door; he could be a very difficult person to get on with.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-46462740054791329792010-07-25T16:13:07.249+01:002010-07-25T16:13:07.249+01:00Changing family relationships are intriguing, Kath...Changing family relationships are intriguing, Kathryn. It's a shame that what seems to have been a fond and friendly relationship between Edward and his stepmother cooled. She sounds like a very decent person.Ragged Staffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285451640470655380noreply@blogger.com