tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post3382850714001022763..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: The Eventful Parliament of November 1330Kathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-47306593450854049592014-04-02T08:43:18.703+01:002014-04-02T08:43:18.703+01:00There may have been particular reasons for prevent...There may have been particular reasons for preventing Mortimer from speaking at his trial eg blabbing that Edward was not in fact dead, but Mortimer was not the only one not allowed to speak in his own defence. <br /><br />If I remember correctly, Mortimer presided over the trial of Hugh Despenser the Elder and prevented him from speaking, so it's ironic he should find himself in the same position. <br /><br />Thomas of Lancaster was also not allowed to defend himself in 1322 and according to the Vita said, "This is a powerful court and great in authority, where no answer is heard nor any excuse admitted."<br /><br />I seem to remember reading somewhere that at that time there could be no defence against a charge of treason because treason could never be justified or excused. So in Lancaster's case, when he unfurled his banner at Boroughbridge - a treasonable act - it justifed his execution and removed any chance of defending himself at trial. If that's so, and if Mortimer's acts were treasonable then he would not have been permitted to defend himself anyway. <br /><br />Also, according to Murimuth, from the execution of Lancaster in 1322 to that of Mortimer, no noble condemned to death was allowed to speak in his own defence. I'm not sure if that's accurate or an exaggeration but it implies that it was, at least, not uncommon. <br /><br />JoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-60677272047920874362014-03-31T09:29:15.155+01:002014-03-31T09:29:15.155+01:00A very enlightening post again, Kathryn. What I fi...A very enlightening post again, Kathryn. What I find slightly surprising is the speed at which everything happened, from the original summons to parliament on 23rd of October to its opening on 26th November. It would not have been easy to gather so many from every corner of England. Although many would have been at the Nottingham parliament, when Mortimer was overthrown, I suspect far more would still have had to be summoned. <br /><br />I wonder if the number of people condemned "in absentia" wasn't a consequence of this swift response. Presumably messengers would have ridden from Leicester carrying the official summons to parliament, but probably spreading news of Mortimer's downfall at the same time. It would have taken Edward and his closest advisers a few days to draw up lists of who they wanted to accuse, and in that time those most closely associated with Roger Mortimer would have had time to flee. Some may even have been at Nottingham, and fled as soon as they could slip away unnoticed. Few people could have had too much confidence in getting a fair hearing, given how the kingdom had been ruled ever since the "Contrariants rebellion". <br /><br />I think Edward III showed wisdom beyond his years in the speed with which he repaired the divisiveness of his father's reign. Freeing Geoffrey Mortimer would have been part of that process. He may have remembered Geoffrey telling Roger to his face that he was the "King of Folly" (Ian Mortimer - "Greatest Traitor"). Perhaps much of that is down to the influence of his friends and tutors. He had suffered personally from the divisiveness of his father's reign, and was presumably determined not to make the same mistakes again. Jerry Bennettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-19787123994528882892014-03-31T09:27:52.470+01:002014-03-31T09:27:52.470+01:00So Edward II isn't just merely dead, he's ...So Edward II isn't just merely dead, he's really most sincerly dead/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12997964601358977356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-52098860352244620622014-03-30T23:59:57.694+01:002014-03-30T23:59:57.694+01:00Great post once again! Reminds me of the trials du...Great post once again! Reminds me of the trials during the Stalin epoc in Soviet Union. Official party line was the name of the game here too. :-D<br /><br />Looks like Edward III wanted to make sure nobody got any more ideas of his father being alive. I guess Berkeley slipped but it went largely unnoticed or nobody dared to raise an issue about his sayings. Understandably so. Sami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-6691760745297514792014-03-30T19:59:53.298+01:002014-03-30T19:59:53.298+01:00There are a lot of people condemned in absentia. M...There are a lot of people condemned in absentia. Makes you wonder if they got a warning and by whom. Gabriele Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205770868139083575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-85067324607669489782014-03-30T19:37:13.555+01:002014-03-30T19:37:13.555+01:00Perhaps the great men in the parliament were rathe...Perhaps the great men in the parliament were rather slow on the uptake and like modern viewers of TV documentaries needed to have every point hammered home not once, not twice, not three times but multiple times just so that they really, really did understand what they were being told - the king's father IS dead. Listen carefully - the old man IS dead! Do you understand me? He is DEAD!<br /><br />Or is it a case of "Methink the writer doth protest too much"<br /><br />Carolinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-54832259781684014822014-03-30T18:52:01.202+01:002014-03-30T18:52:01.202+01:00How odd that Mortimer was gagged and couldn't ...How odd that Mortimer was gagged and couldn't speak in his defence. Was perhaps someone worried as to what he might actually say?Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-61770167433506732242014-03-30T16:12:45.398+01:002014-03-30T16:12:45.398+01:00Great post! I read somewhere that, years later, ...Great post! I read somewhere that, years later, Edward III would reverse Mortimer's conviction (and reinstate his son as Earl of March) because Mortimer couldn't speak in his own defense -- wonder what he would have said if given the opportunity? If true, I think that it shows that Edward III came to doubt that his father was dead --- but I think he would have wanted to believe in that anyway. However, IMO, Edward III truly believed that his father was dead in 1330.<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com