Talk:Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall

Tentative rewrite

I found parts of this article difficult to understand: the prose was lumpy. I've attempted to make it more readable, but this is not a subject of which I have any knowledge, and it's possible that I've misunderstood something. You're welcome to look in the History to compare my rewrite with what came before, and to fix where appropriate. -- Hoary 05:25, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Where exactly does the Edward I quote come from. I have a very hard time believing anybody was actually around to record that quote.

Yah. "You wretched son of a whore!" cried King Edward. "Do you want to give away lands now? You who have never gained any? As God lives, if not for fear of breaking up the kingdom, I would never let you enjoy your inheritance!" Sounds like a Sunday night costume drama; not a text book.

It is not likely accurate. Of all the things that Longshanks would, might have, or did call his son-- and undoubtely they were many and vehement-- 'son of a whore' is not one of them. He would be, after all, referring to Eleanor of Castile.

As suggested, I've cut the worst of the opinions, and got rid of the fanciful dialogue. The article still needs some headings and sources, and I suspect that I can see some factual errors, but I'm not an expert on Gaveston. That said, I loved the comedy drama bit the OP put in.Endie 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why no mention was made of the homosexuality of Gaveston,presumed,fictional or otherwise.I am surprised that no mention is made of Derek Jarmans film Edward II.

Location of beheading

The article is wrong to claim Gaveston was beheaded in Kenilworth. He was executed on Blacklow Hill in Warwick - a monument stands there to comemorate this.

http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/theme/default.asp?theme=1573&text=0 Steve-g 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lover, not "alleged" Lover

I find it strangely disappointing that, after seven centuries of people recognizing that Piers Gaveston had a homosexual relationship with King Edward II, our Bible-thumping, Dark-Age Wikipedians now find it necessary to sweep this bit of history under the rug.

No, it is central to the story and cannot be denied. Piers was executed at least in part for being gay. Denying this is like denying the Holocaust.68.211.77.10 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Piers Gaveston is described as Edward II's 'alleged' lover because, despite what you seem to think, there's really no direct historical evidence that the men were *definitely* lovers. Yes, they probably were. Certainly they were extremely close, emotionally. But without being able to time travel back to Edward II's bedchamber, there's no way of knowing for certain.

By the way, did you know that both Edward and Piers had illegitimate children as well as legitimate ones? And what's your evidence for claiming that P{iers was executed at least partly for being gay? Comparing denial of Piers' homosexuality to denial of the Holocaust is ludicrous and extremely offensive. AlianoreD 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above Alianore is certainly right in calling the May 9th comment offensive!

Please let not all people who have been persecuted through time (which is just about everyone, at one time or another) compare their plight to jews throughout history, let alone during the holocaust period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.108.29 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

These people were persecuted alongside the jews in the holocaust, ignoramus. Also, bisexuality exists. Good lord straight people are thick. 70.55.55.238 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Roger Mortimer?

The reference to Roger Mortimer of Wigmore does not appear accurate. Gaveston was born after Roger Mortimer of Wigmore was dead. Roger Mortimer of Wigmore was succeeded by his son Edmund of Mortimer who died in 1304. Edmund was succeeded by his son Roger Mortimer who deposed and murdered Edward II.

This text moved here from the article, where it was added at 13:13, July 7, 2007 (UTC) by 68.33.15.166.  --Lambiam 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to Chief governor of Ireland instead of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

In the section "Ireland and return" appears "Further to this, he was appointed the King's Lieutenant of Ireland..." Lieutenant of Ireland links to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but that page states it's specifically about the role as existed from 1690 to 1922, well after Gaveston's time. Would Chief governor of Ireland be a more appropriate link? It does cover Gaveston's period, and the List of chief governors of Ireland it in turn links to does include him. ArthenNikolai (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article over the next few days. My first impression is that there should be no real problems. Only minor points or queries so far.

Lead

• "The prince's favouritism towards Gaveston was so extravagant that Edward I sent the favourite into exile, but he was recalled shortly after the king's death, and the prince's accession as Edward II, a few months later." Favouritism and favourite too similar for same sentence. The sentence also strikes me as a little long. Could the end of it be condensed, e.g. "...recalled a few months later after the king's death led to the princes accession as Edward II."

•  Done

• "provoked certain members of the nobility": Not sure about certain here. I would prefer either to leave it out, change it to "some", or to specify who.

•  Done: "several"? They are mentioned by name in the main text.

• "...forced to send him into exile again. During this exile..." Could this be reworded as there are two exiles in close proximity. And there are a couple of provokes around here too, where one may be better.

•  Done

• "It was alleged by certain medieval chroniclers..." Certain again. Maybe it's just me!

•  Done

• "received the support of certain modern historians": Third time in the lead.

•  Done

Family background and early life

• Could we explain the difference between Gaveston and Gabeston? Even if it is just a note. Is it just a different spelling by chroniclers, or is there another reason?

•  Done: It is just a different spelling. This is something most sources are strangely quiet on, but I found something in an old book.

• Could vassal be linked for non-specialists?

•  Done

• "Sometime before 4 February 1287, Claramonde died, and for the rest of his life Gabaston struggled to retain his wife's inheritance." Why did he struggle? Presumably someone wanted it.

•  Done

• "He died at some point before 18 May 1282." Erm... Not according to the previous paragraph he didn't! Typo?

• Thank you

• Could we explain "awarded the wardship"? And could the reasons behind it be expanded?

•  Done

• Prince of Wales... Edward? It does not specify, and it is a little confusing.

•  Done

• "The first manifestation of these difficulties came in the form of a dispute between..." Wordy. Could it be cut?

•  Done

• "This matter was settled by 26 May 1306, however, when Gaveston was knighted, four days after the prince." Was it settled by the knighthood, or settled which then allowed the knighthood? Any ideas why this happened?

•  Done Changed to "before", which should make it clearer. No idea about the process behind the reconciliation though.

More to follow, it may take a day or two. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First exile and return

• "Edward I announced that the prince's favourite had to abjure the realm shortly after 30 April that year..." Erm, what is abjure? Sorry for my ignorance!

•  Done Changed to "leave", which is just as good.

• "In early July 1307, Edward I, once more campaigning in the north, lay dying at Burgh by Sands near the Scottish border." Presumably he wasn't campaigning while he was dying. Could we make that something like "... Edward I fell ill while once more campaigning in the north, and lay dying at..."

•  Done

Earl of Cornwall

• "According to contemporary narrative sources..." Could we give names here. Given the amount of detail in the article, in my opinion, it is worth saying who said what.

•  Not done I'm afraid I don't have Hamilton here at the moment, so I'm not exactly sure about this. I seem to remember that it was Annales Londonienses, and that I didn't mention it because it's a redlink, and wouldn't be much help to the reader anyway.

• "Gaveston was a relative upstart, and his meteoric rise was considered improper." A little vague, needs more precision. What is an "upstart" in this context, and in what way was his rise "meteoric" and "improper"?

•  Done Rewritten.

• "Edward I had allegedly intended it for one of his two younger sons from his second marriage..." Is allegedly necessary here? If it is, who is alleging? Is it disputed?

•  Done Well, this is the fourteenth century, so pretty much everything is alleged. I removed it though.

• "...with appurtenant territories..." Could this be spelt out for the non-specialist?

•  Done Rewritten.

• "it was not long before certain members of the nobility grew suspicious" Who? (If possible)

• This relates to the next sentence, where Warenne, Hereford, and Arundel are mentioned.

• "Gaveston won either by bringing too many knights to the field, or simply by having a better contingent, but at least Warenne – if not the other two earls – became hostile to Gaveston from this point on." Do different commentators have different views on how he won? i.e. is it uncertain? If so, it may be worth saying so. And I don't think "at least" is necessary in the sentence. Maybe rephrase, depending on how likely that the other two earls were hacked off: "...but Warenne - and possibly the other two earls - became...".

•  Done

• "The collective grievances first found expression in the so-called 'Boulogne agreement' of January 1308, in which the earls of Warenne, Hereford, Lincoln and Pembroke expressed concern about oppression of the people and attacks on the honour of the crown" How did this relate to Gaveston?

•  Done Tried to clarify.

More later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland and return

• "Gaveston's exile was not effected immediately; the conditions of the expulsion were that he should abjure the realm by 25 June, and be pronounced excommunicate by Archbishop Winchelsey should he return." A little too wordy: what about "Gaveston was not exiled immediately; he did not have to leave (or abjure, if you prefer, but I don't think it's necessary) the realm until 25 June, but faced excommunication by the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Winchelsey (I think it's worth saying that he was Archbishop of Canterbury) should he return."

•  Done

• "That this was an improvised measure seems clear from the fact that the appointment came the day after Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, had been appointed to the same position." Clunky. What about "The appointment came the day after Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster had been given the same position, indicating this was an improvised measure."

•  Done

• "Even Warwick, who had been the most intrinsic of the king's enemies, was gradually mollified." Not sure that intrinsic is the right word.

•  Done Unyielding?

• "and agreed to lift the interdict against Gaveston" Did an interdict not usually apply to a place? According to the linked article, an interdict and excommunication were not the same.

• It also says that "A personal interdict penalizes named persons." In the sources the terms are used interchangeably, and the article says that "For a lay member of the church, it is basically equivalent to excommunication".

• OK, I'm fine to pass it like this, but I feel it is a little confusing for the general reader, and if the sources use the terms interchangeably, maybe stick with excommunication as the more familiar. But not a big deal if you don't agree. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• "By this time, however, on 27 June to be precise, Gaveston had already returned to England." To be precise not necessary: what about "By this time, Gaveston had already returned to England." If the date is important, maybe "By 27 June, Gaveston..."

•  Done Rewritten.

Ordinances and final exile

• "The chronicles tell of how Gaveston..." Which chronicles?

•  Done I had a hidden comment on this that I intended to include in a footnote.

Return and death

• " but, with the hostility the French king held against him, he is not likely to have stayed there long" Not sure about "the hostility the French king held against him". Can you hold hostility? What about "but the French king's hostile attitude towards him make it unlikely he stayed there long."

•  Done Rewritten.

• "Returning either before or after Christmas 1311..." Why not "around Christmas 1311..."

•  Done

• "At the same meeting the barons – under the leadership of Lancaster – divided up the realm for protection." A little vague. From what was the realm being protected by the barons.

•  Done It was a bit unclear, it was really to oppose the king.

• Were Pembroke and co planning to let him go when he returned to Scarborough? It reads like this. What did they mean by returning him there?

• Which part are you talking about? If you mean where it says "Gaveston then returned to Scarborough", this was while he was still free.

• "If an agreement could not be reached by 1 August, Gaveston would be allowed to return to Scarborough." This reads like they were going to free him. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Gaveston was condemned to death before an assembly of barons" On what grounds was he condemned to death?

•  Done

Aftermath

• "One chronicle..." Which?

• As above, I don't remember which one, but I seem to remember it was a redlink.

• What was the reaction among chroniclers? They were not usually slow to express moral outrage one way or another.

• I added a line about Vita and Edward's pledge to get revenge.

• Is it worth mentioning Hugh Despenser here, and Edward's eventual fate?

• I decided to end it at Boroughbridge, since that was the end of the conflict around Gaveston, and this article is about him and not Edward.

Question of homosexuality

• My understanding of this point is that at the time, the modern understanding of homosexuality did not exist and boundaries were blurred. This is fine for GA, but if this went to FAC, more discussion of this point would be needed. For example, has there been any analysis of what some of the chroniclers may have meant? Maybe discussion of the wider context.

• Good point, in fact Mark Ormrod has recently written an article on this. I've mentioned it, without going into too much detail.

General

• Sources good, images fine. Are there any images of him which could be included?

• The 15th-century one at the top is probably the most contemporary one; there are certainly none made from life.

• Needs Persondata.

• Not really a requirement for GA, but I guess it can't hurt.

• Two dablinks: Arden and Devonshire.

•  Done

• External links OK.

Very enjoyable article. Bits of the prose need ironing out, as indicated above, but comprehensive and well researched. I will put on hold for a week, but I don't see anything to stop the article passing. Apologies for being pedantic! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew, that's quite a thorough review, thanks! You're gonna have to give me a few days on this though. Lampman (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough review, and for catching some glaring errors and omissions. I've fixed most of it, but as mentioned above, I've been a bit hampered by not having the best source available. In the cases where I have not mentioned specific chronicles, as far as I can remember, it was because they were redlinks, and wouldn't serve much of a purpose to the reader. Lampman (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff: left a couple of comments above, but nothing now to stop it passing. Great article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)