tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post3481464862741511597..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: January AnniversariesKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-39099903543876046712014-01-17T06:26:36.337+00:002014-01-17T06:26:36.337+00:00Looks as though you're going to need to placat...Looks as though you're going to need to placate the multitudes, Kathryn! ;-D<br /><br />And it appears the blogger WAS behaving wretchedly. But not to worry! There are a lot of interesting facts in your reply to my endless questions. (For those who would like to know the context, it's a response to an inquiry about the blog that I mentioned from July 25, 2010.)<br /><br />Kathryn, do you ever feel all-powerful when we start talking amongst ourselves? :-)<br /><br />Also, did the Boulogne Agreement truly invoke the doctrine of capacities? All I know about it is what I wrote in my comment above, and it appears that I may be mistaken.MRatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-63124204912326857632014-01-16T21:34:16.709+00:002014-01-16T21:34:16.709+00:00A big thankyou from me for mentioning Lady Despens...A big thankyou from me for mentioning Lady Despenser's Scribery!!! :-) xJules Frusherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207281934232383811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-38830792169878522702014-01-16T10:47:32.848+00:002014-01-16T10:47:32.848+00:00I meant the book: Edward II - The True Story (work...I meant the book: Edward II - The True Story (working title) by Kathryn Warner :-DSami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-80386037586458611152014-01-15T09:13:47.653+00:002014-01-15T09:13:47.653+00:00I second Sami!We want the Book!
My favourite Janu...I second Sami!We want the Book!<br /><br />My favourite January entry: 30 January 1326 :-)Katarzyna Ogrodnik-Fujcikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415905019122111675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-82159762927000611562014-01-14T23:56:44.130+00:002014-01-14T23:56:44.130+00:00WORD!!!
British translation: "I quite agree...WORD!!!<br /><br />British translation: "I quite agree. Please do pen your novel as we're positively agog!"<br /><br />Say what you will about Americanisms (and I'm sure it would all be true) they can at least be succinct.<br /><br />Anyway, I THINK that's the book Sami means, but how did he know? The most recent post I mentioned it after was from July 25, 2010!<br /><br />Unless, of course, he meant, "The King's Two Bodies" . . .MRatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-83866947171026268482014-01-14T14:09:14.373+00:002014-01-14T14:09:14.373+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-42345032933291964552014-01-13T22:28:20.231+00:002014-01-13T22:28:20.231+00:00Well done, again!
PS. We want The Book! We want T...Well done, again!<br /><br />PS. We want The Book! We want The Book!<br /><br />:-DSami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-68302873836341774792014-01-13T21:18:22.526+00:002014-01-13T21:18:22.526+00:00Splendid details!
'Trussell "knelt befo...Splendid details! <br /><br />'Trussell "knelt before our lord the king and cried him mercy, begging him to pardon his trespasses against him, and he [Edward] pardoned him and gave him the sign of peace in front of them all." (Pipewell Chronicle)' Was that a blessing or a kiss of peace, as Edward exchanged with Thomas of Lancaster in the field between Loughborough and Leicester in 1318? (Both of them doubtlessly wishing they were anywhere else.)<br /><br />And do we know the exact wording of the Boulogne Agreement? I've read that the doctrine of capacities was revived for the disgruntled nobility by Hugh the Younger in 1308. J. Conway Davies wrote in "The Baronial Opposition to Edward II" that the nobles at Boulogne "entered into a solemn agreement to defend the king's person and the rights of his crown and to redress what was amiss." Davies doesn't say that they claimed their loyalty was to the Crown and not Edward, but seems to suggest that they vowed to protect both as one and the same. Did Davies misinterpret their intentions? Or am I misinterpreting Davies?<br /><br />Questions, questions, questions. Please forgive me.<br /><br />Fantastic post!MRatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-8330521080582539062014-01-12T18:25:11.875+00:002014-01-12T18:25:11.875+00:00January was a very busy month in Edward's reig...January was a very busy month in Edward's reign - so many important events took place in that month. Thank goodness he managed to lay Piers to rest, almost 3 years after his death - I find his devotion so moving.<br /><br />I enjoyed finding out about Llewelyn Bren when I last visited Caerphilly Castle. Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-78754976061294015172014-01-12T15:46:39.863+00:002014-01-12T15:46:39.863+00:00Thanks, Beata and Esther! I think most probably t...Thanks, Beata and Esther! I think most probably the date was coincidental, as it partly depended on the timing of the deputation travelling from London and back, with all the vagaries of the weather in the depths of winter. Ernst Kantorowicz has a book called <i>The King's Two Bodies</i>, about political theology in the Middle Ages of the king's/queen's body political and body natural, and how it developed. It's a really long time since I read the book, though. :-)<br /><br />I really must write a proper post soon about Edward's forced abdication. I can't remember offhand where the story of the threat is given, but I think in Geoffrey le Baker, writing c. 1352, whose chronicle invented the idea that Edward was tortured at Berkeley and who wrote an extremely detailed description of the supposed red-hot poker murder. So definitely not a reliable source!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-68195029467926565002014-01-12T15:23:40.020+00:002014-01-12T15:23:40.020+00:00Great post! I didn't realize that Edward II&#...Great post! I didn't realize that Edward II's forced abdication was so close to his wedding anniversary (I wonder if that date was deliberately chosen?) Also, any idea how the story developed that Edward II was threatened with the idea that, if he didn't abdicate, the throne might not go to his son?<br /><br />Also, Is the doctrine of capacities related to the monarch's "two bodies" (Elizabeth I's "body politic to govern" as well as her natural body)?<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-9708104082088275192014-01-12T15:01:14.561+00:002014-01-12T15:01:14.561+00:00Interesting anniversaries! Although I believe tha...Interesting anniversaries! Although I believe that the Doctrine of capacities became somewhat discredited, the concept of the monarch as a person and the crown as<br />an institution is still with us & its various spin-offs, e.g. the Prime Minister as a person and as Prime Minister etc, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com