|(Click to enlarge. I had to laugh at the missing apostrophe in the last sentence and how it changes the meaning.)|
It really shouldn't need pointing out that Isabella had only recently turned twelve when she married Edward II on 25 January 1308, so yeah, obviously she didn't become pregnant for several years. I would have thought it was something to applaud that a girl of twelve, thirteen, fourteen wasn't forced to go through the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth before her body was properly developed, but that's never stopped Edward's detractors from moaning that he 'neglected' Isabella in the early years of their marriage. From the records, you can actually see Edward II becoming more interested in and affectionate towards his young queen as she got older and more mature, and was able to become his wife in more than name only. Again, you'd think that Edward not being interested in a pre-pubescent or barely pubescent girl, but becoming a heck of a lot keener as she matured, would be something positive, but apparently not.
That's a weird comment too about Edward III being conceived after Edward and Isabella were 'living apart'. The timeline here is completely up the spout. Edward II and Isabella were certainly together at the right times to conceive all their children, and their relationship didn't start going wrong until 1322 at the earliest, after all their children were born. Even then, I'm not sure you could say they were 'living apart'. It's as though people in the fourteenth century were so stupid and ignorant they wouldn't have noticed and commented if the queen had become pregnant when she and the king were apart for months on end.
I would just like to clarify that the notion of Isabella of France's children not being the children of Edward II is an entirely modern invention. It first appeared in 1985, in one of Paul Doherty's novels, in which he changed Edward III's date of birth by eight months from November 1312 to March 1312 in order to accommodate the fiction that the young king's real father was Roger Mortimer (which is impossible anyway as Roger was also hundreds of miles away from Isabella nine months before March 1312). So, this idea has only been around for the last thirty years, and was popularised by Braveheart in 1995 and has been mentioned in another couple of novels of the early twenty-first century, and a few online articles, blog posts and book reviews. There is absolutely NO evidence at all that it ever occurred to anyone in the fourteenth century, or for an extremely long time afterwards until the late twentieth century, that anyone but Edward II fathered Isabella's children. The notion that he didn't is based entirely on modern misconceptions about sexuality - firstly that if people are not completely heterosexual, they must be completely homosexual, as though all human sexuality is a simple binary in which bisexual people are erased altogether. And secondly, that gay men are incapable of fathering children, as though being gay makes you sterile. It boggles my mind that someone cannot recognise that until very recently, gay people frequently had to marry a member of the opposite sex and procreate whether they wanted to or not. Oscar Wilde fathered children, and is anyone going to claim that he wasn't gay? I personally know several gay men who have children. Madness. None of Edward and Isabella's contemporaries at all doubted that he was the father of her children. There is not even a hint of a rumour or gossip anywhere. Just think, if there had been, how gleefully Philip VI and the French would have jumped all over it after Edward III claimed their throne. What better way to discredit him than by having it proclaimed that he wasn't the son of a king after all, but merely of one of the queen's lovers? But of course they didn't do this, because the idea obviously never entered their heads that Edward III wasn't the son of Edward II. Neither did it enter the heads of the many magnates and bishops who forced Edward II to abdicate his throne to his son in 1327. Or anyone else at all, until a fiction writer of the late twentieth century decided it would give his book more drama and excitement.
Unfortunately, it seems that the perfectly simple and obvious fact that Edward II was the father of Edward III is one which it suits a few people in the twenty-first century not to believe. And the fact that I point this out here as often as I think it needs to be said apparently means that my book about Edward II is 'biased'. Just LOL.