tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post7063914001219188308..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: An Inaccurate Article about Isabella of France in History of RoyalsKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-33761788784903042042020-10-11T16:32:53.369+01:002020-10-11T16:32:53.369+01:00Personally I never believed that a Queen wouldn...<br />Personally I never believed that a Queen wouldn't have let a non royal touch her. Its happened throughout history, Caroline Matilda of Denmark nearly 400 years after Isabella, Catherine of Valois with Owen Tudor a century after her and a century before her Isabella of Angouleme was alleged to have a lover from court. In Anglo Saxon times Eadburh is another example.<br />If two people are in love status or lack of it means nothing<br />Also I don't believe that Isabella was Roger's last chance of going back to England. Even if she'd left him other barons and exiled royals would have gone back and in any case the regime was going to fall anyway as it was so unpopular. Had there been no invasion, its very likely that the barons would have put their foot down, and arrested/ imprisoned /executed the Despensers and Edward. <br />I don't believe that Roger used Isabella for riches and to work his way up, she had no power as a woman and queen. Parliament would have to have agreed to land grants and would have to agree to accept them both as rulers in the first place.<br />It should also be remembered that Henry of Lancaster also got a huge land grant of about 6000 .<br />The comment allegedly made by Mortimer could have meant he was worried about her going back to her husband as this could have meant danger for her? He had heard of her alleged affair and would at least have locked her up if not killed her.<br />People often say these things when they are not serious about killing someone, I remember when I told a friend I wanted to go back to a certain country( where I had a bad experience) she said I'll kill you if you go. But no knife or gun was pointed at me...<br />If Mortimer was seriously threatening her then the French court would have dealt with him. And from what I see young Edward accepted him at that time.eimearahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12612812219610157290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-38662317693274356992017-03-05T00:04:25.724+00:002017-03-05T00:04:25.724+00:00This is a really excellent analysis and critique. ...This is a really excellent analysis and critique. It doesn't even matter if one 'agrees' with everything. It's just clear and good thinking.<br /><br />There is endless yabber about bloodlines and being anointed and so forth as being somewhat important. It wasn't. This was ever ceremonial bilge by the ruling class to justify their always oppressive rule. An empty drum makes the loudest noise. Like the U.S. claiming it stands for 'democracy'. Truth is lords and whomever, everywhere pitched this twaddle overboard whenever it suited their advantage. They were liars and hypocrites of the highest order. To find the deeper motives one has to dig a lot. Oh, we are chosen people, the elect, the elite, entitled by right, of a higher class, God's minions etc. Translation: All you other people have to bow down and give over to us. History is the record of those regular folks figuring this is twaddle and pitching the lot overboard. The Big Dudes in Edward's day didn't really believe any of this and continually proved it by their behaviour. It is seductive to indulge these fantasies but discipline has to kick in at some point. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087962530846913799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-73392363735387889742017-03-03T16:22:17.595+00:002017-03-03T16:22:17.595+00:00I don't know if its the history written by men...I don't know if its the history written by men in the past or what, but seems to me that down playing women as independent agents of their own lives seems to be some kind of a blind spot in history in general as well in fiction. We know that already in Rome, the most patriarchal society imaginable, there were many powerful women on their own right and not just among the emperors household. One lady was the biggest bread maker in Rome for a while.<br /><br />Granted, my ideas stem from the fact that up here in north women have had strong positions trough the centuries and still do. During the iron age there were women chieftains in Finland (they have found graves of women with swords and others which belonged to the local rulers) and during the so called viking age women often ruled the whole household.<br /><br />While the men folk might have been away for years on some journey to the west or to the east (all the way down to Byzantium or Baghdad) the lady of the house "had the keys", meaning she was the boss at home. She literally commanded the house and it's people while the man of the house was away. She could also take a "bed warmer" for the time her husband was away, naturally that guy was better to disappear when the husband returned from abroad, and she could sit on local meetings as a substitute for his man. I think that is also the root for the gender equality in Nordic countries, despite the church doing it's best to put the womenfolk to their "place".<br /><br />So when I read how Isabella, the born royal, was just a whining helpless snowflake between evil gay men and testosterone puffed warriors, I always think something is missing here. She, just like many other women in medieval times, had courage and guts, and most of all political power, to literally move mountains. And she did so, too. sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-70322095082172426262017-03-03T12:14:20.093+00:002017-03-03T12:14:20.093+00:00I must be honest and admit that I have enjoyed som...I must be honest and admit that I have enjoyed some of Paul Doherty's historical whodunnits as light reads (don't worry I do put my serious hat on sometimes for reading and avail myself of some non-fiction). I guess the main thing is to take the light reads with a liberal grain of salt.<br /><br />Attributing modern day thoughts and aspirations to people from earlier centuries is a pet peeve of mine. Sami has mentioned a number of powerful women - I had a lurk over on Res Historica earlier and a thread has been opened there on Theodora (from Byzantium). I remember she featured in a novel by Robert Graves "Count Belisarius" which I read many, many years ago. It's well written (in my opinion at least - these things are always subjective), doesn't have a conventionally happy ending, but it's based on the writings of Procopius (sp?) which may not be entirely accurate.<br /><br />So very likely Isabella was a "daughter of duty". Part of me would not have begrudged her enjoying a happy relationship with a man (by the way I'm not forgetting that in the earlier parts of her marriage to Edward the two of them did at least seem to jog along okay even if they didn't fulfil the criteria of "passionate shepherd to his love") but Kathryn makes valid points which indicate that Isabella's and Mortimer's alliance was very likely one of convenience and not necessarily having a sexual component. Like Amanda, I am not a "historian" - just Josephine Public with an interest in former times - well I did History up to A level but we concentrated on the period from the Stewarts (well Charles II's restoration and James II getting the boot from the throne really) to the Reform Act of 1832 (the rotten boroughs, that sort of thing) which was much later than Edward II's reign.<br /><br />Patricia OAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-48593672207842896242017-03-02T20:04:19.873+00:002017-03-02T20:04:19.873+00:00Kathryn, thank you for the reply re 'letter an...Kathryn, thank you for the reply re 'letter and Thomas Walsingham'; so that's made that point clear. In other words, surely if Isabella had real concerns about Edward and Piers she would have voiced it and somewhere, but somewhere, there would have been even a tiny inkling in a chronicle or document etc of rumours that she was feeling threatened by his association with her husband. She would have had support from her French royal relations if her situation was humiliating and intolerable surely. I really cannot see that Isabella had any grudge or sinister thoughts towards Piers.<br /><br />I've read some shockingly inaccurate history books in my time (I'm just an interested person without qualifications) but really, some authors do need to support their arguments and statements with proper proof - I won't name anyone (not you suffice to say!). AmandaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-32689875207652132432017-03-02T08:13:01.105+00:002017-03-02T08:13:01.105+00:00And another thing: what is also often forgotten is...And another thing: what is also often forgotten is that medieval women and queens specially could and sometimes did wield power themselves. We see them usually as a side show or whining spouses or as in Isabellas case, helpless horny girly / poor victim who falls for the ultra masculine Mortimer etc. <br /><br />And when she acts, she is the horrible SHE WOLF bu huu!<br /><br />In reality many queens and ladies wielded a lot of power during the medieval times. Eleanor of Aquitaine was not a shrinking violet, nor was Eleanor of Castile later on. Saint Adelaide ruled as a regent the Saxony and some parts of Italy in 900's. Margaret of Anjou lead for sometime the Lancastrians during the War of Roses, Queen Isabella I of Spain was co-ruler to her husband and very powerful indeed, and there were several ladies who wielded power in Byzanthine Empire for real, regardless if they were officially in power and despite the misogynist culture in there.<br /><br />For what ever reason it is assumed that Isabella was an exception or that she could not act as her own agent, as an independent political force, and yet: she did. She got rid of Despensers and did it by raising an army and invading England. I don't remember too many french doing that in history. Not that everything went as planned since her husband was ousted and thrown into the jail, but still: the invading army and the coup was done in her name under her political power. Period.<br /><br />So why some still believe that she was just a feather in the wind and a shivering flower on Roger huge masculine super strong hands?sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-79252319099687508232017-03-02T06:05:04.809+00:002017-03-02T06:05:04.809+00:00The point is really that very few people at the ti...The point is really that very few people at the time did suggest that Isabella had an affair with Mortimer. It's far more of a modern notion, to build up their association into a grand passionate love affair and to claim this mutual attraction. So if there's sexism, I don't think it's the fourteenth century's. It's modern, not medieval, writers who have come up with nonsense like Isabella 'surrendered to the embraces of a strong and lusty adventurer'.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-85289832824944723872017-03-01T21:04:14.997+00:002017-03-01T21:04:14.997+00:00I've often wondered if Isabella's alleged ...I've often wondered if Isabella's alleged "affair" with Mortimer had its roots in the sexism of the times. After all, planning an invasion would have required them to spend a great deal of time with each other -- but few people at the time would have suspected that Isabella (or any other woman) would be involved in such a serious matter, or, would act as an independent political agent, with an agenda of her own.<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-37704792390468219742017-03-01T17:00:57.033+00:002017-03-01T17:00:57.033+00:00Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Amanda! It's...Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Amanda! It's always great to get different perspectives.<br /><br />The only 'source' that has Isabella complaining about Piers is a letter she supposedly wrote to her father, which proponents of the Victim!Isabella school of thought often cite as though they have the original letter in front of them, but it was invented many decades later by the chronicler Thomas Walsingham, who died in c. 1422. (Not 1322!)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-26258781508827436312017-03-01T16:54:47.438+00:002017-03-01T16:54:47.438+00:00Just to chip in - my thoughts - Isabella was no fo...Just to chip in - my thoughts - Isabella was no fool; she was royal by birth and knew her 'duty' i.e. get heirs and keep the kingdom safe. Now, once queen, she would not have tolerated any nonsense by anyone never mind a Gascon knight getting a bit close to her husband so I think there wasn't a threat to her from Piers presence (she would have demanded he was never in her sight). For the same reason, I really am unsure that she developed a love affair with Mortimer (a passionate friendship and alliance with him for mutual benefit maybe) but her status would not allow her to go any further.<br /><br />On a lighter note, are there any entries in French chronicles saying Isabella was complaining of Piers being at court:<br /><br />Dear brother<br />Another dreadful day, Edward and Piers have gone hunting and fishing together without me, again. I really do feel quite left out, here in this strange land they mention 'gooseberry' but I don't know what they mean.<br />Write soon.<br />Isabella<br /><br />Yes, I realise 'gooseberries' were probably unheard of in this era but you understand my meaning.<br /><br />AmandaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-11134349749412161282017-03-01T09:53:05.522+00:002017-03-01T09:53:05.522+00:00Sami, thanks a lot for that! I think the notion th...Sami, thanks a lot for that! I think the notion that Isabella would not have allowed a non-royal man to touch her is an idea that deserves wider consideration - of course we can't prove it, but I do think a lot of people nowadays forget who Isabella really was and how she thought of herself.<br /><br />Anerje, thanks for sending me the article - I meant to thank you in the post!<br /><br />Nick, that's so true, sadly.<br /><br />Thank you, Paula!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-33180799713833532762017-02-28T23:12:39.440+00:002017-02-28T23:12:39.440+00:00I was going to say that your counter arguments are...I was going to say that your counter arguments are ace. But look on the bright side, at least you are there to challenge all these myths that come out. If I was a maligned monarch I'd certainly want you on my side!Paula Loftinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17138899684247746388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-53043647998832916442017-02-28T20:36:48.029+00:002017-02-28T20:36:48.029+00:00When I took my degree statements had to be referen...When I took my degree statements had to be referenced and proven. Sadly today the ides that if you repeat a falsehood often enough it becomes the truth has taken hold in all areas of life. Keep plugging away for the truth.nick wrightsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-52055386878589861582017-02-28T19:47:17.986+00:002017-02-28T19:47:17.986+00:00I KNEW that article would infuriate you! :)I KNEW that article would infuriate you! :)Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-9088587765804977742017-02-28T19:00:22.310+00:002017-02-28T19:00:22.310+00:00Well done once again. Looks like you have to keep ...Well done once again. Looks like you have to keep on doing this again and again and again for god knows how many years. <br /><br />Now this is my take on Piers and Isabella, based on my own pure speculation: I think they got along just fine and I would even argue that they backed up Edward as a double team.<br /><br />People forget couple things: Piers was originally a Gascon knight, meaning France and french were more than familiar to him. And yes, he was a knight, which in those days was very holy thing with holy ideas, specially in France. Now, regardless of the nature of his previous association with Edward, he would not have gotten in between the king and his queen. That would have been against everything he was as a knight and as a kings favorite. That would have been devilish, against his knightly ethos to the core. So I believe he was not in between the king and the queen at any time. If he also loved Edward, he would have given up everything he had for His benefit and happiness, not only because his personal affection but also because that is what a knight was supposed to do for his love and honor. A good knight was willing to die for his love and for his king. <br /><br />Now, Isabella was a queen. The kings were anointed, they received their regal rights directly from the God, and as a wife of the king, Isabella was part of that deal. She was from a royal family, royal stock and a queen, married to a king. No way she would have even thought about of having a sexual relationship with a man of a lower status. She was "divine" on her own right. Roger Mortimer was not. She tried to use Mortimer against Despensers and he used her to climb up and get revenge of his own. Now, she was very much in a trap once she joined forces with Mortimer but to have a love affair with him, I doubt it very much.<br /><br />People also forget that she had seen the treachery of the barons when his husband had been dealing with them and she had also seen what they had done to Piers. I wonder how much she was a prisoner of Mortimer, a captive of the situation as it was, and once the Despensers were done with, she tried forget about the reality by getting on a shopping/spending spree in a medieval royal way. I very much doubt she was ever in love or ever slept with Roger Mortimer even once.<br /><br />Isabella was not a Paris Hilton. She was a Royal, part of the almost demigod elite who ruled with the right directly from the God. She knew this, was born into this, and believed in it. When she complained about Edward and Despensers, it was the latter she expressed her hatred and venom against. Not her husband whom she knew was loose as a goose when it came to the politics and running a tight realm. Basically she had no problem with his husband other than Hugh Despenser who somehow took over the rule of the land while her husband was perhaps thatching roofs or ice swimming, I don't know.<br /><br />But like I said, this entirely my personal speculation. Feel free to disagree.sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-26180940567294800202017-02-28T16:17:57.530+00:002017-02-28T16:17:57.530+00:00Thanks, Jules! Yes, it's such a shame that the...Thanks, Jules! Yes, it's such a shame that these silly inventions are perpetuated, and writers really need to check the original sources before repeating them.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-1079585309313775992017-02-28T15:50:22.827+00:002017-02-28T15:50:22.827+00:00Very well dissected and argued. I still find it di...Very well dissected and argued. I still find it difficult to fathom how PD managed to do the research necessary for his PhD but not on later writings. His book has informed far too many 'historians' who then haven't bothered to check the facts. Such repetition of 'myths' does no good for the furtherance of understanding either history or the historical characters involved.Jules Frusherhttp://www.ladydespenserscribery.comnoreply@blogger.com