tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post6384808942741815366..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: Random Moments in the Life of Edward IIKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-4663777599118419532013-04-02T07:49:33.053+01:002013-04-02T07:49:33.053+01:00Henry, many thanks for taking the time to leave su...Henry, many thanks for taking the time to leave such a terrific, insightful comment! You're absolutely spot-on. Goodness only knows how anyone can look at payments to the king's staff and think 'oh, he must have been having sex with low-born men!' Absolutely baffling. Loved the 'groom of the stool' bit :) :-)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-23000214669159402922013-04-02T05:14:31.374+01:002013-04-02T05:14:31.374+01:00Thank you for your enjoyable and informative blog....Thank you for your enjoyable and informative blog. <br /><br />Alison Weir's treatment of Robin Hood strikes me as a grotesque example of what can happen when a non-expert writes about medieval history. <br /><br />Payments to Robin Hood figure in several "journals" (daily accounts) of the chamber, so it shouldn't have been too difficult to discover that he was a regular employee and not a male prostitute. <br /><br />Moreover, the fact that this Robin Hood was a "porter of the chamber" at the court of Edward II has been well known since the mid-19th century when Joseph Hunter, assistant keeper of public records and a well-known West Yorkshire local historian, published a pamphlet (<i>Robin Hood</i>, 1852) in which he argued that the royal servant was in fact the famous outlaw. Weir could have picked up just about any book on the supposed historicity of Robin Hood and found discussion of this royal servant.<br /><br />Far from being a euphemistic way of saying they had sex with the king, the mention in the accounts of Robin Hood and other employees being in the company of the king means they were doing service in the king's presence rather than having been left "behind" at some other place. Medieval English kings were peripatetic, and in this respect Edward II certainly was no exception (as witnessed by his itinerary published by E.M. Hallam in 1984). On many occasions, for instance when he was hunting or on a flying visit, there was no need for the king to bring along all his servants, so those not needed were left behind pending his return. Now I have not done any actual calculations, but I am pretty certain one would find the daily pay was lover for servants "left behind" than for those who were with the king. This is why the accounts either separate recipients of servants' wages into those who were with the king and those who weren't or alternatively, when there are payments to only a few servants, state for each whether he was with the king. <br /><br />Quite apart from all this, an actual payment for casual sex would be extremely unlikely to appear in royal (or any other) accounts during the Medieval period.<br /><br />I wonder what Weir might have made of the term "groom of the stool" if this position had been first introduced during the reign of Edward II :-) .Henry Funkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13701134027092841725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-15139002599724852352012-08-04T20:15:47.993+01:002012-08-04T20:15:47.993+01:00I think you should spill all the bad stuff on him ...I think you should spill all the bad stuff on him too; and there is plentyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-20367516357362783082009-06-25T15:46:10.835+01:002009-06-25T15:46:10.835+01:00Susan: exactly, especially when you compare this g...Susan: exactly, especially when you compare this gift to the heavy fines imposed on everyone else who married without the king's consent.<br /><br />Lady D: What gets me is that everyone who's discussed the Liz situation in print has assumed she was telling the absolute gospel truth about her treatment, and make the same assumption about everyone else who complained about the Despensers - so it would be really fascinating to investigate the Despensers' activities and find out what is true and what is not. Discovering that Hugh was apart from Ed from at least 9 Oct to 19 Nov 1325 and from 23 Feb to 21 March 1326 demonstrates that the usual notion that he needed to be constantly at Ed's side to 'control' him and the government isn't accurate - so then I start to wonder what else is assumption and not fact.<br /><br />Clement: thanks, and glad you enjoyed the post! I really must read up more about Robyn.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-56891894114544916642009-06-24T20:25:14.013+01:002009-06-24T20:25:14.013+01:00Another fascinating insight into Edward's char...Another fascinating insight into Edward's character, Alianore. <br /><br />He comes across in these documents as way ahead of his time. A 'modern' monarch, in the style of our 21st century Royalty, not a medieval king.<br /><br />On 21st October 1324 Robyn Hod was discharged with five shillings because he was no longer able to work. He was docked pay on several occasions previously, so it is quite likely he was either sick or too old to work. As you say reality proves far too mundane than speculation.Clement Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116966238223089211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-39148980407852967742009-06-24T13:49:31.503+01:002009-06-24T13:49:31.503+01:00I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed hea...I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed hearing about every one of these discoveries. There is much here that threatens to rewrite a great deal in the istory books. I am particularly intrigued as to why Hugh should have been so apart from Edward during this period. Like you, I had always assumed they were together - on grounds of Hugh's security if nothing else.<br /><br />And I completely concur with Elizabeth Comyn exaggerating her 'terrible imprisonment' at the hands of the Despensers ;-)Jules Frusherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207281934232383811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-87013708829901256792009-06-24T13:31:42.195+01:002009-06-24T13:31:42.195+01:00And giving Richard Talbot ten marks after his secr...And giving Richard Talbot ten marks after his secret/private marriage wasn't exactly the act of an outraged monarch! Sounds as if Elizabeth Comyn could have been exaggerating a bit.Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-26223528317507019302009-06-24T13:27:17.701+01:002009-06-24T13:27:17.701+01:00Thanks, Kate! Hope the details were as much fun t...Thanks, Kate! Hope the details were as much fun to read as they were to transcribe! I don't know about Anneis - the entry seems to mean that she did something to earn the money rather than just beg for it, but this is where the annoying vagueness of the chamber account creeps in. Grrr.<br /><br />Ashmodai: thanks, and glad you enjoyed it! The bit about Ed buying his own fish is wonderful, isn't it - such a great image (to us anyway - not to his contemporaries).<br /><br />Susan: <i>priuement</i> could also be translated as 'privately', but that still raises the question: if she was a prisoner, how did she manage to get married in private (or secret?) I'd love to know the truth of the situation. Was Elizabeth telling the truth, or embroidering and exaggerating her woes in the aftermath of the Despensers' downfall?Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-51569868474793857792009-06-24T13:06:53.634+01:002009-06-24T13:06:53.634+01:00Fascinating, especially the information about Eliz...Fascinating, especially the information about Elizabeth Comyn's secret marriage. If she managed that, surely she couldn't have been kept a virtual prisoner by the Despensers, as is usually alleged, don't you think?Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-10133620753065342432009-06-24T12:57:05.266+01:002009-06-24T12:57:05.266+01:00Thanks for this awesome and interesting informatio...Thanks for this awesome and interesting information, Alienor!<br />I enjoyed it a lot. (And I can't get the picture of Ned buying fish out of my head now...)Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923211901062787444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-77700392898919165332009-06-24T11:15:23.609+01:002009-06-24T11:15:23.609+01:00Wonderful stuff! I wonder what the 10 shillings w...Wonderful stuff! I wonder what the 10 shillings were for at the gate on St Katherine's day?!!!! Perhaps Anneis was a particularly sorry looking beggar at the gate? The descriptions of the food made me hungry. Thank you for translating these documents - I know you are having fun BUT it doesn't hurt to hear how grateful we are. And we ARE!Kate Plantagenetnoreply@blogger.com