Talk:Edward II of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

Contents

[edit] Edward II

Is there any particular reason you removed all references to Edward II's homosexuality from his page? Although I am not an expert on this, it seems there's enough evidence that it at least warrents a mention.

Basil Fawlty 06:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's okay to say that it was alleged that he was a fag, but so long as we don't add him to the "gay, lesbian and bisexual" category on Wikipedia, I think is alright. He was a weak and exploited king because he didn't have the right focus. That did not make him gay. Some contrived stories to help attack and displace a king do not deserve primary consideration and focus in our articles as the basis of our opinion of them. Besides that, I believe the Gay community trys too dishonestly to attach fame to their perversion in order to normalise it in every vein of society. This is like Black people trying to attribute European inventions and etc to Africans. Perverting the truth will not save it. Edward II was not a gay hero, despite what gays want to do to claim he's one of their icons and his enemies holding onto the misinformation to justify their perks from his fall. Kenneth Alanson 08:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why did you remove references to Edward's alleged homosexuality? Does it burn you so much to think that a king could have been homosexual? You talk about "fags" trying to revise history but it is obvious that you live in fear of the truth yourself. You fear the truth because it could hurt you. Most homosexuals on the other hand would not lose anything if it turned out that the stories about Edward's sexuality are baseless. They couldn't care less if he was homosexual in the first place. You seem to have much to lose, which is why you try to censor information so as to stop people from asking questions. --Ilmateur (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your anti-gay rant reeks of homophobia. Let the FACTS fall where they may. There is ample evidence that King Edward II was gay.68.219.235.65 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous stories on Edwards II alleged homosexuality and I think that they should be included here, as long as they are NPOV. The part Kenneth Alan removed was in place for 1.5 years and was written in a neutral way, so it should not have been deleted, IMHO. Kenneth Alan's message above shows that he is not very 'understanding of homosexuals' in general, by using the word 'pervert' in conjuction with gay people, which very well could be the reason he reverted it in the first place. Thorin 21:36, 22 September 2004 (UTC)
No, my free usage of terminology makes me American. I did some recent studying of Eddy the second and it appears things aren't the way they were laid out in this article. I'm sure most gays would still love to plaster him as an icon in the cause for gayness today. This is historical revisionism based on an exaggeration of his opponents' claims in order to dispose of him. Today, anti-king statements often get the blessing on a similar level to what power a Pope says in reference to things. Truth be told, Ed couldn't fill his father's enormous shoes and was paled by him in every respect. Often, royals would develop mass amounts of stress to try and live up to the legacy of their forebears and this would come upon them as a sort of nihilism that Ed most assuredly had by not meeting the professionalism of his father. Besides, if you look at the website of the royals, you will see that it mentions nothing of homosexuality. I am absolutely sure that gay toleraters would try and turn it around to say that of course the royals wouldn't say the truth. However, if you look at it more lucidly, you will see that Ed gave out his power to a few close people in succession and this is because he trusted them as opposed to various powerful factions striving to take it from him, due to his personal disinterest in the responsibility of kingship. Much can be seen with James VI/I as well, where he invested the power in those he thought uncorruptible, despite how unorthodox it may seem to those who want to absolutely control the monarchy for themselves. Obviously, the side affect to small power concentration is the impossibility of holding the power together, the very opposite of the king's intent, yet it is what conspirators view as proof of his homosexuality, despite no hard evidence. Just think about it, when there are many wanting the power, what other way to try to gain it but by displacing the few who actually hold it with vastly discrediting any move the ruler makes and distorting it for their gain...? Ed was trying to be an absolute monarch in a different vein of his father(his father already fought most relevant battles and won them so Ed found little reason to do anything but store the power with confidants, obviously making him sort of a flake when it comes to wielding fearful power that makes people fall in line with respect-which one can only do by building a monopoly with himself at the top), and ultimately failed because he had few rewards to give, when he wanted only those close to him to share with it. He was obviously in contraversion to oligarchy and that didn't serve many monarchs well, which was against such things as the Magna Carta and also, the Constitutional Monarchy that later developed prevented all of this. Køn Olsen 22:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(The above notice was written by User:Kenneth Alan under a pseudonym. This user has a history of subverting Wikipedia content to please his personal agenda. Why would any honest person use a pseudonym, anyway? Wikipedia is too transparent for such naive subterfuge. The contemporaries of both Edward II of England and James I of England, as well as their modern biographers, judge that their affection for their male favorites went beyond contemporary decorum. Subverting information is always despicable, whoever does it. Wetman 22:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))
No, this stuffy, dank library book reader with no concept of the educational freedom of the time the stories of HM King Edward II were made, isn't privy to understanding the times and the media control. The retort by this last Wikipedia editor is extremely snide and refuses to recall several other editors who use pseudonyms on an ever constant basis and the difference is, IMHO, they aren't under any scrutiny, but I am at this present time. It's not the first time I've encountered such libel by him and I'm not a baby, I can handle it. Regardless, you who are spectators to this little frenzy that just happened, please keep your mind in your head and not lose perspective to the article, by forgetting this defamation to my character. Køn Olsen 22:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Aha, it seems that in the case of Edward II, he had a vengeful wife with a powerful lover to subvert the throne, which to me seems the big difference between the reigns of Edward and James VI/I. James didn't lose his throne because he had a more stable marriage with a more faithful wife not in much spite over James's time spent hard at work to control the kingdom via his favourites. Also, during James's time, it was often a priority for the King to attend the Kingship much as a career and not so much a family affair. However, his attempts to install the Divine Right Of Kings was barely convincing that he could enforce such power to the contemporary day English Peerage and was a direct recall to Edward's time in which Kings tried to appear godly. Interesting. Besides, aren't French women more promiscuous than Danish women? Aren't they more attracted to soap operas and the glam of feuds (a Mediterranean/Romance feature in their culture)? This could also account for Isabella's unfaithful affairs and Anne's relative peace with James's style of family life. User:Kenneth Alan 22:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have reverted the article to include the section on homosexuality. Please note that using the phrase "fag", or referring to homosexuals as "perverts" is considered derogatory and therefore not NPOV. 81.156.181.197 18:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey, just because you think Braveheart is gospel, doesn't make Edward II the way Hollywood portrayed him. What type of sad scholarship is this?? Mind you, I am watching Braveheart right now and notice several exaggerations and/or distortions throughout the movie. There are many things invented and are the sole device for increasing the ideal of Scottish independence. This movie will not get me to believe that Edward was gay. I notice the argument above me as unproductive. It seems that the truth is decided by politics and popularity factors. I hope for some acknowledgement of the truth without speculation to be the standards of articles, because this article happens to rely on inferences. Inferences do not add up in court, because they are inadmissable. Inventing truth, why, now that's a FICTION and irrational pretext, a justification for motives I have just spoken of. 24.255.40.174 17:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whomever you are, Braveheart (in which the battle across a swamp traversable only by a very narrow bridge is portrayed as being on wide open fields) has nothing to do with it. Its a long considered academic fact that Edward II was gay. CheeseDreams 18:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Whoever", not "whomever". "Are" is a copulative verb and both arguments take the nominative. You made the same mistake in your next post below. By the way, if there exist persons who were then gay, I'd say the poor things are awfully old. And as for your statement that "it's a long considered academic fact that Edward II was gay," I think that "long considered academic fact" part sits within some very limited knowledge on your part.Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone considered themselves to be, or were considered to be, gay at that time. Slrubenstein

There exist persons whom by our definition of the word "gay" were. Just because a word does not exist doesn't mean that the value of it doesnt. The colour "indigo" did not exist as a colour word before Newton. However, the colour did. There was no word for the Tea plant in the 212th century BC, that doesn't prevent tea plants from having existed. CheeseDreams 11:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that Edward II had a homosexual relationship with Piers Gaveston, and in all likelihood, the Younger Despenser. Although not explicitly stated by chroniclers, they said of Edward and Gaveston "the King is lovesick for his minion." Adam of Orleton denounced the King as a "tyrant and a sodomite", following the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer. Froissart noted of the Younger Despenser "He was a sodomite, even it is said, with the King." Does that make him gay, as we would see it? I don't know. He had at least five children, and clearly enjoyed sexual relations with women. Perhaps that makes him bisexual in our terms.

Sean Fear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.11.71 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's "who", not "whom". Please get a book of grammar and learn why. Alcuin of York (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The quotation "the king is lovesick for his minion" comes from Christopher Marlowe's play "Edward II", circa 1592 - not a chronicle contemporary with Edward's reign. Edward had an illegitimate son Adam as well as his four legitimate children by Isabella (she also had one known miscarriage) so I suppose, by our terms, he was bisexual. AlianoreD (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small aside

a small aside: is the story about Edward's allegedly gay lover being executed after his private parts were burnt in front of him, true?? i just read it on the internet. it's crazy what man will do to man.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.110.89.98 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2004 (UTC).

Yes, it is true. Thats one version of the "drawn" bit of "hung, drawn, and quartered". CheeseDreams 16:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Translation: "Most likely it isn't true, but I like to read blogs that have a version that seems to me to make our argument stronger." Would you care to cite eyewitness accounts? Everything I've seen yet comes from later sources. Historical revision is bad. Thank you.Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Was Edward II gay? This dispute may never be solved, Why? Edward II (1284-1327) is in no condition to tell us if he was or not, (probably wouldn't tell us if he was). Mightberight/wrong 14:51, 27 October 2005

The simple fact that a google search of the term Edward II will bring up mostly sites suggesting he was homosexual requires it be addressed in the opening paragraph. If you have a problem with this perception, put it under a subheading of "Arguments over sexuality" and provide both POVs on the issue, but the fact that the public (rightly or wrongly) percieves it to be so requires that it be mentioned.

Suicidal mongoose 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake, mongoose, people on the web will say anything they damn well please. Al Gore is accused of claiming he invented the internet, though he never quite made that claim. George Bush is accused of "being AWOL" though had he actually been AWOL he'd have spent years in jail. Doesn't matter whether the claims are true, just keep saying something over and over, and sooner or later some mongoose is going to assert that because it was said so much, it must be true! Remember that claiming historical figures were gay has become the activists' favorite pastime; of course you're going to find a gazillion websites claiming it as true.Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot poker story?

I've long doubted the truth of the "hot poker story"; it bears too much resemblence to the death of Edward's brother-in-law, Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford. Humphrey was speared through the anus while fighting on a drawbridge by a pikeman hidden under the drawbridge. It's my suspicion that some confusion arose, or the story was deliberately changed, so the victim changed from the Earl of Hereford to the King of England for a more "ironic" death.

When does the "hot poker" story first arise? Any contemporary or near-contemporary reports?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mississippienne (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 March 2005 (UTC).

Ouch, if (supposed gay) Edward II was murdered this way, he was probably used to the OTHER kind of hot pokers? 28 October 2005—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.117.234 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC).
The poker story appeared 30 years after the supposed event. There are scholars who go as far as to suggest that Edward did not die in Berkely Castle, was alive in 1330, and the story was entirely concocted by Thomas Berkeley on Roger Mortimer's orders [1] and the discussion below seems to be reviewing those ideas also. --Alf melmac 09:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, but English records hold his death in this manner (I can't remember which encyclopedia I used, but I'll try to find it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.130.104 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
Email me if you find the cite. Jmm6f488 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In The Life and Times of Edward II by Caroline Bingham (p. 197) the story is credited to author Ranulf Higdon in his long historical chronical Polychronicon . Historians disagree when Higdon, (also spelled Higden) wrote his portion of the chronical. One editor dates his portion of the work to 1326 or 1327. See Higdon's Wikipedia page for more info. The chronical was apparently added to by several other authors. Caroline Bingham gives the story some credibility by stating the first person who translated the work into English, John Trevisa, became the vicar at Berkeley Castle not long after Edward II was murdered and while Thomas Berkeley was still alive. Thomas Berkeley was the lord of Berkeley Castle at the time Edward II was imprisoned and supposedly murdered there. He translated the passage regarding Edward II's death without comment, which Caroline Bingham takes to mean he did not disagree that was the way Edward II was murdered. The text in the Polychronicon is "Cum veru ignito inter celanda confossus ignominiose peremptus est" i.e. "He was ignominiously slain with a red-hot spit thrust into the anus."
Another author, Paul Doherty, in Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (p. 129-131) also cites other sources for the story. Chronica Monasterii de Melsa II, Meaux version p.355. He also names another contemporary chronicler, Swynbroke, Chronicle of Baker of Swynbroke (written in 1359 or 1360.) and Leiscestershire chronicler John of Reading, who said the hot poker story was based upon the confession of the guilty parties.
Jsternsp 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

John Trevisa wasn't even born until about 1342 and lived until 1402. He didn't become a chaplain at Berkeley until the late 1370s, half a century after Edward II's murder - hardly a contemporary source! The Thomas Berkeley who was Lord of Berkeley then was the *grandson* of the Thomas, Lord Berkeley who was Edward II's custodian, and was born in 1353. And Higden was writing in the 1340s, not 1326/27 - that date doesn't refer to when he was writing, but the time he was writing about. AlianoreD 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fieschi Letter

This section is written in a POV manner without sources. It needs complete rewriting and proper sourcing to be of encyclopædic standard. FearÉIREANN 20:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried not to give a POV, but the variance between the letter and previously accepted history has to be explained. If you want sources, I have pasted the text of Fieschi letter below. The letter was discovered by a French archivist in the binding of an official register dated 1368 which had been the property of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne, and was preserved in the Archives Departmentales d'Herault at Montpelier. It is still there today. The letter has been tested and is not a later forgery. Fieschi is a well known historical figure. He had several livings in England and knew the country though the letter shows a confusion between the rank of a knight and that of a lord. The following is a faithful translation from the original Latin. I suggest that you read the letter and then send me your comments about where the article is faulty. Could it be that your concern is that the letter differs from what you thought you knew?


In the name of the Lord, amen Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I have taken care to be known to Your Highness.

First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the coast. There he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock, and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led him to Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places. And there, many people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you were crowned at the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him, after some little time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Barford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases you, I shall give you my clothes that you may better be able to escape.' Then, wearing the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison. And when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed. And, having got the keys out of the door, he opened it and went out, with his keeper. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, and fearing the indignation of the Queen, for fear of their lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in a chest, his heart having been extracted and maliciously presented to the Queen, as if they were the heart and body of your father; and, as the body of the King, the said porter was buried at Gloucester. Afer he had escaped from the prison of the aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together with his companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the castellan of the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys.

Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do, crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen days. Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been considered, and after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of devotion, he might see the [shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving Cologne, he crossed over Germany and headed for Milan in Lombardy.

In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo], in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.

Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant.


JMcC 09:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


FearÉIREANN has failed to respond to two messages asking about his doubts about factual accuracy. It is only possible to conclude that this user has no grounds for his objection. I have therefore removed the factual accuracy warning from this section. JMcC 09:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed Life "After death"

I feel there should be some mention in the article about the belief that he was not killed and infact escapted. See the Letter section above. There is a fair amount of popular belief in this and even some scholars have argued this. Citing such things as the archetecutre at the hermitage that he supposedly lived out his life at, the above letter, and the manner which his body was displayed for viewing after his "death". There is also a fairly good argument that goes to debunking this, I have the articles somewhere but I have to find them so I don't want to add them myself just yet. If someone can remember them would you please add them. If the "hot-poker" story is included, which it should be since it is part of the mythology of Edward II, his supposed survival should be as well.

I also vaugley remember reading somewhere that Edward III supposedly met his father at some point later in his life but had no idea it was him as he was dressed as a hermit and did not let his son know. Anybody else remember anything like this? Or is this something I have come up with from something else? Some help with these things would be appreciated. FubarDac 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read a few times that another victim was used and Edward was smuggled out of the country to Lombardy and spent the rest of his life as a hermit. Maybe worth adding to the main article with a credible source? Lugnuts 18:31, 31 July 2006

I've read, in the recent biography of Roger Mortimer, that he was smuggled to Corfe and kept prisoner there. In relation to the article, that Edward III pressed charges against Roger over the death of his father, which is used to signify that Edward II was in fact dead, can be disputed by the same logic as to why Roger kept Edward II alive. Roger needed an extra hold over the young king, instead of just his mother, so the king was kept alive, after his supposed death, to allow the option that he might return. If Edward III denied his father's death, there might be a call from some of the Lords and Earls to reinstate his throne, thereby forcing the young Edward to abdicate. Concerning the tomb and hearse used during Edward II's burial, only a small number of people would have known about Edward II survival, so the abbots, clerks and people in charge of the funeral would not have known, and acted in good faith, and would have done the same if the king were dead, and this was his actual funeral. The chronicles saying that Edward was killed, were written in Northern England, the home of the Earl of Lancaster, an opponent of the Mortimer, and there by could be propaganda against Roger. The Earl of Kent was executed in 1330 for treason, ammounting to trying to rescue Edward II from prison, this was 3 years after the 'death' of Edward. Another piece of evidence was that Thomas de Berkeley, being tried alongside Roger in Parliament, pleaded that he couldn't have killed EdwardII because he was still alive. I cannot find sources for this apart from 'The Greatest Traitor', a biography of Roger Mortimer, sympathtic to his cause, and it's included bibliography.

What Thomas Berkeley said to Parliament was "nec unquam scivit de morta sua usque in presenti parliamento ipso" - "that he never even knew about that [Edward II's] death until the present Parliament". What exactly he meant by that is a matter for speculation. He didn't explicitly claim that Edward II was still alive. AlianoreD 07:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Despensers

The sections on the Despensers needs to be rewritten as it takes a tone that makes them sound like they were friends of the people when historical research shows the greatest abuses came during thier time in power. I believe at least one historian has pointed out that the barons and the commoners would have gladly taken Gaveston over them. FubarDac 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed two of the most obvious statements of opinion, but it needs considerably more work.
—FlashSheridan 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WHY ARE DEATH DATES INALTERABLE???

There's already a lot of speculation that Edward II survived the alleged assassination, but even then, the date was and is still uncertain.

Why, then, is there a "Sept 21 1327" as if carved in stone, inalterable? I've tried several times to add a "?" but to no avail.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Letter

Where has the Fieschi letter gone? There don't seem to be any references to it in the article, and the death of Edward, poker and all, seems to be described as certain (despite the fact that historians today generally accept that that story is hardly based on eyewitness accounts). I'm sure I remember it being here a few months ago, and now it seems to have vanished. So where is it? Surely something so highly relevant to Edward should be mentioned there? Accordingly, unless someone can give me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be there, I am going to elaborate upon the doubts surrounding Edward's death, and add a section regarding the letter (using 'The Greatest Traitor', by Ian Mortimer). Michaelsanders 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify template

I added this because I think the new sections of the article need some Wiki links. I realise it's "work in progress", of course. Andrew Dalby 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs better referencing

I know nothing about this period in British history, but it looks like the legacy of this figure is disputed. I can't help but noticing that we have a very long article without any inline references. If this person is disputed then inline referencing will be required. I don't understand why a blog that "wishes to save the reputation of a beloved monarch" (or something along those lines) is listed as a source. This article needs solid referencing from printed works. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about blogs, or beloved Kings; I've been adding to the article over the last month or so, based on The Greatest Traitor, by Ian Mortimer - it's a biography of Roger Mortimer which also covers Edward II. That's the bit that the above note wants references for. Michaelsanders 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great. I just noticed the combination of a lack of inline references + an issue that looked slightly controversial, that's all. Good luck with the article. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have noticed that the blog was listed under "See also", not the references section. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the blog. In fairness to it, when I had a look, it seem quite interesting, and it seemed source-based and informative; nonetheless, the premise, and the temporary nature of the link, makes me feel uneasy about keeping it. Which is not to say that links to of Edward II as a good person should be discouraged; but something a bit more 'high-class' (i.e. a reputable webpage, text by a reputable author, or even simply something more permanent) would, I think, be better. Michaelsanders 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the above: if we are to be as fair and unbiased as possible, we need to include in the 'see also' section either links to an even spread of views of Edward II, or no links to such things. With the removal of the blog link, it is now slightly pointless - we have the Marlowe link (I seem to recall that Marlowe was pretty harsh to Edward), the link to historical sexuality (having looked, the wikipedia article there has practically nothing on Edward), and nothing of great value to anyone who wants to find out more online. So some links to anything which can tell us more about Edward - facts, views, etc - would be useful; but, I would think, it would have to be a 'good' site, whatever 'good' is (I also work in the Harry Potter articles, and the criteria there is that, for a site to be 'good', it must be endorsed by the author. For obvious reasons, Edward II can't endorse a website, but anything produced by/recommended by a reputable historian would seem a good idea - if there is such a thing). Just my views... Michaelsanders 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It's my blog that you removed. It doesn't say anything about a 'beloved monarch'; the 'slogan' is "an attempt to salvage the reputation of one of England's most maligned kings". My aim is to provide a more balanced and sympathetic view of Edward, while remaining as objective as possible. I have a BA and an MA with Distinction in medieval history. I'm wondering what qualifications people posting here have for writing about Edward II? AlianoreD 11:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put the link back in and we'll see how it lasts ... In fairness to those who removed it, Wikipedia's general guidelines deprecate links to blogs; but they also say that rules are made to be broken, and I think that in this case the link is really useful. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As I noted above when discussing the removal of the link, I said it seemed good. But the point remains, it is written as a blog. It is not user accessible (a reader can't easily look up a subject, merely has to trawl through the archived dates), it does not source its information particularly well, and the basis of writing according to immediate interest means that it jumps erratically from different subjects - from Edward's marriage to his deposition to the marriages of Margaret de Clare. It is a blog, temporary. Is there no way that you can make a proper website? Michaelsanders 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
'Erratic'? That's your opinion. I prefer to think of it as 'eclectic'. Everything in it is 'about' Edward II, his reign, his life, his family, in some way. It's intended to be both informative and entertaining. If you don't enjoy it, fine. But if you check the sidebar, you'll see that (most of) the posts are categorised to facilitate user access. Sources: I haven't figured out a way of adding them while keeping the interface readable and user-friendly. I don't want to add 'source: Vita Edwardi Secundi' or 'source: Annales Paulini' or whatever after every sentence. If any readers want to find out the original source, they're welcome to ask me in the comments. In fact, a lot of my posts quote directly from primary sources. And considering the Wiki article only references one primary source, one article of less than a page, and three books - and one or two more in the text not mentioned in the 'References' - I hardly think you're in a position to criticise. Where are the references to Haines, Dodd and Musson, Maddicott, Phillips, Johnstone? What about Edward II's Chamber and Wardrobe Accounts, Household Books, Patent/Close/Fine/etc Rolls, IPMs, other contemporary or near-contemporary chroniclers, etc etc? Why is Ian Mortimer's 'Greatest Traitor' quoted in the text but not mentioned in the 'References'? Why has his quote about the younger Despenser (the minister and bully one) been copied in the text without citation? By the way, I have no idea how to set up a website. AlianoreD 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on life and death

Alison Weir (2005)in Isabella, She Wolf of France; Queen of England, makes a persuasive argument that Edward survived an attempt on his life on 21 September 1327 by adherents of Roger Mortimer and subsequently fled to Italy via Corfe and the continent. She argues that Edward's custodians covered up his escape with a substituted body to avoid the consequences of their own incompetence. She cites several sources as evidence for this argument including the Fieschi letter, which she also quotes in full and analyses in the context of other evidence.

The Fieschi letter has never been discredited,although there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. None of these undermine its authenticity however. Fieschi himself was a clergyman, a distant relative of Edward II,and a friend of Edward III's tutor, who had lived in England and who had met Edward II. He was therefore sure to have recognised the King when he saw him in Italy. Weir estimates that given the length of time it would have taken for Edward to travel to Italy as an individual without the benefit of his position, and the length of time the letter says Edward spent in the hermitages in Italy, then it is likely that Edward II died c.1337 (although the margin of error is quite high). The Fieschi letter should certainly be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, since it is germane to any discussion of Edward II's life and death.

21 September 1327 is commonly cited as the date of Edward's death/escape because Isabella was 130 miles away from Berkeley, where Edward was held, when she was informed of his death during the night of 23 September (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, Public Record Office; Haines: Edwardus Redividus). This is about how long it would have taken a messenger to travel from Berkeley to Lincoln, where the Queen was staying. One source (the Berkeley accounts) says that a messenger arrived in Lincoln on 28 September. This is likely to be an error and should be 23 September, but it is enough to raise a question mark about the date of Edward II's death/escape.

Edward's postulated homosexuality is relevant in that it partially explains his close associations with Gaveston and le Despenser at the expense of his wife and the English magnates and the trouble those relationships subsquently brought down on his head. The life and death of Edward II is important for the precedents it established in British law and government, not for its spurious effects on the sexual politics of the 21st century.

The death by red hot poker is an obvious fiction since it would cause so much pain that the victim would be screaming for days, before succumbing to shock and peritonitis. Hardly, therefore, a method of assassination that would be chosen by conspirators trying to discreetly get rid of a deposed king. Nor is it consistent with the considerate treatment Edward received while he was a prisoner. Moreover, as previous correspondents have noted on this page, there are no contemporary sources that support this story. Some reasonably contemporary sources assert that he was either suffocated or poisoned (much more plausible). R0byn8 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy/Continuity Issues and Writing

In the Edward II wiki article, the writer states that Edward I selected Piers Gaveston as an companion to his son in 1298. However, in the Piers Gaveston wikipedia article, the date is cited as 1300. Does anyone have information on the actual date, or is their an academic debate regarding the date?

Article also freqently uses the stock phrase "some people" when discussing controversial items such as Edward's homosexuality (I think we also need to use care in seperating homosexuality from homosexual behavior, so as not to project contemporary readings onto Edward's sexual behavior). It would be beneficial to have some idea of who "some people" are and what their claims are.

I'm going to clean up the article for general awkward sentence structure, poor punctuation and excessive clausation. --Madnessandcivilization 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When will this madness end? No matter how much followers of social constructionism try to skirt around the issue, it is ultimately impossible to deny that homosexual behaviour indicates the presence of homosexual desire. What is "projecting a contemporary reading" anyway? That is such typical constructivist lingo. If someone had actually suggested that Edward II was "an early pioneer of Gay Liberation" then I would understand the criticism, but it is hardly unreasonable to say that a person who engages in homosexual relationships is homosexual, as that is what his behaviour shows him to be. Oh, and don't tell me that "the gay identity had not yet been constructed." Gay identity is more a man made of straw and shot down by social consructionists themselves than anything that actually exists in the real world outside social constructionism. It is not necessary for a person now living to internalise a specific gay identity before he can actually feel homosexual desire, and it was clearly not necessary in Edward's time. --Ilmateur (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of the Fieschi Letter and Events at Berkeley Castle

The Fieschi Letter, written by Manuel Fieschi around 1340. It was discovered in the department of archives at Montpellier in a cartulary, compiled in 1368, of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne , treasurer of Pope Urban V . It was first published in 1878 by Alexandre Germain. The letter was written by Manuel Fieschi and address to the son of Edward II , Edward III . The source of this information is the Doherty book cited below.

Historians generally agree Edward II was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327, although the method of death is unclear. The Fieschi Letter claims Edward II escaped from Berkeley Castle and was not murdered at all. The letter claimed Edward II traveled to Ireland, across Europe, and finally became a monk in an Italian monastery after his escape. Fieschi, who had met Edward II and would have known him on sight, claimed to have personally spoken to the deposed and supposedly dead King, and heard his confession. The Fieschi Letter does not say Edward II was dead at the time it was written, so one can assume Fieschi was claiming Edward II was still alive as of the date he was writing the letter, 13 years after Edward II was said to have been murdered.

There is a fascinating, entertaining, and comprehensive analysis of the Fieschi Letter, in Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003) by Paul Doherty . Mr. Doherty also sets out in detail other curious events surrounding the murder of Edward II , and the pursuit and prosecution of those involved in his murder. Mr. Doherty has studied history at Liverpool and Oxford universities. He earned a PhD in history from Oxford.

Mr. Doherty places the letter in the relevant historical context. He talks at length and in detail about Manuel Fieschi, his relationship with the English royal family, and his service to the Vatican. He provides an analysis of which parts of the letter indicate Fieschi had accurate inside knowledge of the ultimate fate of Edward II , and which parts of the letter show gaps or errors in Fieschi's knowledge of facts which are, and were at the time, historically verifiable. He also provides information about what points of the letter the person the letter was addressed to, Edward III , would have known were incorrect.

In addition:

The accepted historical record states the highly mobile, organized, and well resourced Dunheved Gang learned where Edward II was imprisoned in July 1327. They hatched a plot to free him. The gang caused a riot in Cirencester, disappeared, and then turned up in Chester. Then the government issued writs against the Dunheved Gang for avoiding military service in Scotland. On 1 August 1327, Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle and responsible the custody of Edward II , was given special powers to hunt down and bring the gang to trial.

The accepted historical record states the Dunheved Gang made a raid on Berkeley Castle some time during July 1327, and may have freed Edward II temporarily. Historians have stated Edward II was either immediately returned to Berkeley Castle , or was never freed and moved around to other castles during July and August 1327. Historians agree Edward II was back at Berkeley Castle by the beginning of September 1327. Historians generally agree Edward II was not at Berkeley Castle during the interval between mid-July 1327 and 1 September 1327. A possible explanation for this confusion among historians were gaps in the recordkeeping and bills submitted by Thomas Berkeley to the government for reimbursement for Edward II's keep during his imprisonment at Berkeley Castle, which were not submitted until long after Edward II's historically accepted date of death. The generally accepted historical fact states the Dunheved Gang were, ultimately, never able to free Edward II , and he was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327.

Mr. Doherty also emphasizes in his book the letter of John Walwayn, printed in the Ancient Correspondence in the Public Records Office, and published by the historian Tanquerery. John Walwayn , a royal clerk, was sent to Berkeley Castle to investigate the Dunheved raid of July 1327. He was a royal clerk, so one would presume he was sent by, or under the authority of, Queen Isabella and/or Roger Mortimer, who were running the government at the time. Walwayn's panicked letter regarding the raid makes it obvious something was seriously awry at Berkeley Castle in July 1327, and clearly states Edward II was indeed freed from his imprisonment by the Dunheved Gang during the July 1327 raid. This, and other curious events regarding the pursuit and prosecution, or lack thereof, of Edward II's murderers and others involved in the events at Berkeley Castle during the period of July to September 1327 are detailed in Mr. Doherty's book.

Mr. Doherty's conclusion is Edward II was not murdered and was indeed freed by the Dunheved Gang from Berkeley Castle on or about 19 July 1327. Mr. Doherty makes the case that Edward II survived at least 13 years after the date historians believe he was murdered, which was the approximate timing of the Fieschi Letter. The book makes a pretty compelling case, in my opinion.

He concludes the Fieschi Letter was nothing more than clever and subtle means of blackmail to encourage Edward III to resist pressure to divest Manuel Fieschi of offices and lands he then held under the authority of the English Catholic Church. Fieschi received monetary benefits from being a foreign absentee office holder and landlord. Many in England resented foreigners who received monetary benefit from the English Catholic Church in return for little or no work. There was pressure brought to bear upon Edward III at the time the Fieschi Letter was written to revoke these types of privileges for all foreign absentee beneficiaries. Edward III did revoke the rights of many foreign absentee office holders and landlords due to this pressure. Manuel Fieschi, however, not only did not lose any of his offices or lands, but was awarded additional offices and lands by Edward III thereafter and financially prospered. If the letter was meant as blackmail, it worked beautifully.

Why would Edward III not want anyone to know his father had not been murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327? (Items 2 and 3 might be a tad inexact as I can't currently locate my source book. If there are any errors I will correct them once I have done additional research and/or located the book.)

1. It could result in a threat someone might try to reinstate Edward II . Edward II was the first British Monarch who had ever been deposed. He was actually pressured to abdicate in favor of his son under threat of being deposed, if one wishes to split legal hairs. If he had not abdicated, the Plantagenet succession was threatened. He abdicated to insure his son would inherit the throne instead of one "not of royal blood, but experienced in governance," which is believed to be a thinly veiled threat to put Roger Mortimer , his wife's lover and architect of his downfall, on the throne. At that time there was no historical precedent for this action. Edward II was not without supporters like the Dunheved Gang, especially in Wales. This would be a very sticky situation for Edward III and raise potentially embarrassing questions about Edward III's actions, or lack thereof, before and after his father's murder.
Historical aside, Diana, Princess of Wales , formerly Lady Diana Spencer, is a direct descendant of the hated Hugh Despenser the Younger , who was selected by BBC History Magazine as the 14th century's worst Briton, and viewed as largely responsible for the downfall of Edward II . It is ironic that Prince William of Wales may someday inherit the same throne Edward II sat upon, given the fact Prince William's ancestor is viewed as being one of the prime motivations for causing the first British Monarch in history to be forcibly removed from said throne by force of law.
The cite for this is Sir Winston's son, Randolph Churchill , who authored his the first two volumes of his father's biography. The claim is made in Volume I of the biography (Youth 1874-1900 Ch. 1 P. 9).
Sir Winston Churchill and Princess Diana share a common ancestor, Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (1683-1716) , who Randolph Churchill claims is descended from Hugh Despenser the Younger . Having researched this issue myself, I can see how this claim would be controversial among historians. The direct ancestral link from Diana, Princess of Wales to Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (1683-1716) is real and very well historically documented. However, Anne Spencer's ancestral line can only be directly traced back to Sir John Spencer, born before 1490, died 14 April 1522. No one seems to be positive who Sir John Spencer's parents were. The claim that Sir John Spencer was a direct descendant of Hugh Despenser the Younger is based largely upon the assertions of Randolph Churchill in his father's biography. Seeing that Anne Spencer was also a direct ancestor of the Churchill family, it is possible there is some document in the Churchill family archives which supports his claim. I don't know what Randolph cites as the basis for this ancestral connection. I guess it's time to pop down to the library to check it out. See http://www.thepeerage.com/p10537.htm#i105367 for info on Sir John Spencer. (Go on! Trace his descendants just like I did! Fun for the whole fandamily!) See http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=763 for the 411 on the Churchill ancestry. Randolph Churchill's Wikipedia page also claims poor Randolph had a serious drinking problem. *sigh*
2. If this issue were raised again in public, Edward III would not be eager to explain why he had not protected his father before his death if Edward II was indeed murdered. He would also not be eager to explain how a fake corpse had been passed off as his father's if it could be proven Edward II was still alive. Why was the dead King embalmed by a local old woman instead of a royal physician? Why was the body held so long before it was transported for entombment in Gloucester Cathedral? Why was no one, except the conspirators, allowed a close look at the body until long after the King had died? Why do contemporary historical accounts seem to indicate only a cursory and superficial viewing of the dead King's shrouded corpse when it was finally made available for viewing?
3. There is also the thorny issue of Edward III's strange and inconsistent pursuit and prosecution of those thought to have been responsible for Edward II's murder. Some were exonerated despite comically incredible testimony. Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle and responsible the custody of Edward II was found innocent despite giving testimony that conflicted with written historical documents. His testimony could have easily been proven false if Edward II had been murdered at his castle, and his culpability established if he was present in the castle at the time. (Which written records say he was, but he claims he was ill and recovering at one of his other estates.) He even said in his testimony that he had not known until the day of his testimony that Edward II was dead! (Could this mean Thomas was cleverly baiting the court because he knew Edward II was still alive? Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose kind of defense.) Roger Mortimer's statement upon the gallows did not mention Queen Isabella or the death of Edward II . Roger Mortimer's title was reinstated to his grandson by Edward III . That grandson, Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March even served as a member of Edward III's royal council, which is hardly a case for lingering bitter feelings toward the Mortimer family despite all that had transpired.
4. After his father's death, Edward III went to great lengths to protect and rehabilitate the reputation of his mother, Queen Isabella . Anyone who could provide credible evidence Edward II was alive would cause embarrassment for the royal family. Difficult questions would be raised and the whole issue would again be dragged into public view. Even if the claim could be proven false, Queen Isabella's actions before and after the time of her husband's death would once more be called into public question. Queen Isabella's adulterous affair with Roger Mortimer would once again become grist for the common gossip mill.
One of the curious actions taken by the government when it was under the control of Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella was the issuance of writs against the Dunheved Gang. Between the July 1327 Dunheved Gang raid, and 1 August 1327, when Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle was given special powers by the government to hunt down and bring the Dunheved Gang to trial, the government only issued writs against the Dunheved Gang for avoiding military service in Scotland.
It was widespread knowledge at the time the Dunheved Gang was avoiding military service in Scotland expressly for the purpose of locating and freeing Edward II . Why were they not charged with more serious crimes by Mortimer and Isabella’s government? Treason, perhaps? Maybe Mortimer and Isabella had more pressing reasons not to call attention to the true motive of the Dunheved Gang in public government writ, such as Edward II had already been freed by the Dunheved Gang and was wandering about the countryside, whereabouts unknown.

It all makes for absolutely fascinating reading, even if other historians and fellow Wikipedians believe it is a load of historical bunk.

--Jsternsp 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Charles?

The article mentions a certain "Charles": "On 31 May 1325, Isabella agreed to a Peace Treaty. It favoured France and required the King to pay homage, in France to Charles. But Edward decided instead to send his son who would pay homage to Charles." Am I right to assume this is [Charles IV of France], Isabella's brother? If so, this should be mentioned explicitly in the article.

Top.Squark 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Lovingnews1989 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Why is the picture at the very top left hand side of this page the same as the Edward I page? shouldnt there be diferent pictures?

[edit] Adam FitzRoy

Apparently there is a mistake either here or in the article on Adam FitzRoy: This article says: "Edward had also fathered at least one illegitimate son, Adam FitzRoy, who accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1312 and died on 18 September 1322." The article on Adam FitzRoy says: "He accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1322, and died shortly afterwards on September 18, 1322." Which Scottish campaigns are the right ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.182.222 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


1322 is the correct date. I've changed it in the article. AlianoreD (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innumerate Ancestry

As current, listed percentages add up to 107.71.186.172.82 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from that, what's the use of this statistics? This person was not a dog of mixed parentage like half bulldog and half Golden Retriever etc. The nonsense of this becomes clear when one would try and ask what his "English" heritage really was. Anglo-saxon? Saxon? Maybe Roman? Viking? --Bernardoni (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)