tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post882494808679906277..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: Appearance of Edward IIKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-47342559036180262612022-04-25T18:33:25.661+01:002022-04-25T18:33:25.661+01:00Thanks for this. I've been wondering what he l...Thanks for this. I've been wondering what he looked like as he is painted as such a weak king. As for height, the average Highlander in that era stood 6 feet and Angus Og Macdonald, friend of Robert the Bruce, who fought with the King of Scots at Bannockburn was 6 ft. 2 inches, determined by his grave slab.Regan Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977297105533227463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-79157794378002857272018-06-11T16:18:09.487+01:002018-06-11T16:18:09.487+01:00Don't think Richard III was unhandsome. Facial... Don't think Richard III was unhandsome. Facial reconstruct was botched I think giving him that unnatural jaw. They also made him. Cross eyed. Not the handsomest man in Europe but the portraits have been altered. I do think he had a hard visage he was outdoors a lot, riding and doing Edwards bidding.Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060509343278506752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-45761917947544284872014-07-04T14:13:46.667+01:002014-07-04T14:13:46.667+01:00Unfortunately not :/ It was rare for anyone's...Unfortunately not :/ It was rare for anyone's appearance to be described (we don't know what Isabella looked like, even). One later chronicler said Piers was 'graceful in body', and that's all we have.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-28102180071501717312014-07-04T14:11:35.777+01:002014-07-04T14:11:35.777+01:00Thanks)
do we know about appearance of Piers Gave...Thanks)<br /><br />do we know about appearance of Piers Gaveston? or Hugh Despenser?Edward Sumarokovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-3084146308326359812008-03-06T20:31:00.000+00:002008-03-06T20:31:00.000+00:00Yes, I think so, and don't forget their amazing ab...Yes, I think so, and don't forget their amazing ability to store sperm, too. ;)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-64496645782333851422008-03-06T18:31:00.000+00:002008-03-06T18:31:00.000+00:007 year pregnancy. I think that was pretty common b...7 year pregnancy. I think that was pretty common back then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-38803282068384073192008-03-06T06:45:00.000+00:002008-03-06T06:45:00.000+00:00Hey, who needs a bridge in the battle of Stirling ...Hey, who needs a bridge in the battle of Stirling Bridge, anyway?! ;) It's Isabella's 7 year plus pregnancy that makes me sporfle the most. :-)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-80878733796570169792008-03-05T21:13:00.000+00:002008-03-05T21:13:00.000+00:00The Battle of Stirling Bridge. Really, there's sup...The Battle of Stirling Bridge. Really, there's supposed to be a bridge in that battle? The bridge wasn't that important of a factor was it? :)<BR/><BR/>It's still one of my favorite movies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-47983708715442843652008-03-05T14:47:00.000+00:002008-03-05T14:47:00.000+00:00Steven: *grins*. I can quite enjoy that film, but...Steven: *grins*. I can quite enjoy that film, but only if I pretend that I know nothing at all about any of the characters, none of whom really existed, of course, and that it takes place in some parallel universe which bears an *extremely* vague resemblance to England and Scotland in the 13th and 14th centuries. ;)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-72282007909925018482008-03-04T19:02:00.000+00:002008-03-04T19:02:00.000+00:00Quite a different appearance from the way he is po...Quite a different appearance from the way he is portrayed in Braveheart. Though that is probably one of the least glaringly inaccurate points of that movie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-72856394952639955432008-03-04T12:53:00.000+00:002008-03-04T12:53:00.000+00:00Thanks, Kevin - that's really kind of you! Unfort...Thanks, Kevin - that's really kind of you! Unfortunately, I haven't found a pic of the corbel online, but scanned it from one of my books - the file was huge, over 20 MB, which may be why Blogger wouldn't upload it. And for some reason I couldn't compress it (I'm not very good with that anyway). I've deleted the image from the PC now, but I'll have another go at scanning it, and see how it works - if not, I'd be delighted to ask for your help. ;)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-62965847319561972742008-03-04T02:07:00.000+00:002008-03-04T02:07:00.000+00:00I might be able to assist you with the uploading o...I might be able to assist you with the uploading of Edward's corbel in Winchelsea. I've had the same problem with certain file extensions, Blogger can be quite stubborn! If you'd care to send them to me, I'll save them in a different format, or if you could direct me to the original URL, I'll use my SnagIt software to latch onto a copy for you.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-90278377366654618222008-02-28T08:41:00.000+00:002008-02-28T08:41:00.000+00:00GeorgeD: so true, what you say about history. I'm...GeorgeD: so true, what you say about history. I'm convinced that portrayals of Isabella say far more about how the historian views women than Isabella herself - so for centuries Isa was condemned as an adulteress and 'unfeminine' by people who couldn't believe that a woman could act the way she did, whereas nowadays she's seen more and more as some kind of empowered feminist icon, not to mention the long-suffering victim who 'lost her children'. None of that says anything about what Isa was really like; it merely forces the events of her life into a narrative she couldn't possibly have recognised.<BR/><BR/>I've seen a lot of resistance to my certainty that the red-hot poker story was nonsense, most often along the lines of 'but it has to be right, that's what I learned at school!!' And sensationalism plays a BIG part too, of course.<BR/><BR/>That's some great insights into Edward there - thanks very much! Lots for me to think about, especially the Despenser bit. <BR/><BR/>Looking forward to hearing from you again soon...;)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-59346749086488910242008-02-28T06:31:00.000+00:002008-02-28T06:31:00.000+00:00Three more hot poker death books! Ick! History wri...Three more hot poker death books! Ick! <BR/><BR/>History writing, it seems, is very rarely about what really happened, but mostly about what people want to have happened. It's a tough thing to tell truths that people aren't prepared to acknowledge. You're up against sensationalism ("how delightfully gruesome!" ... drool ...) on the one side, and traditionalism ("you're not going to tell me the chronicles have it wrong!" ... snarl ...) on the other. Please don't let them discourage you too soon. Selfishly I hope that you will keep up the good fight for a long time to come -- and win it in the end, of course!<BR/><BR/>While I'm at it, here are my impressions of Edward II so far. In general, what keeps me interested in medieval history is that it's so exotic. Those people are so far away, so strange, so unapproachable ... you can look at their outside as much as you please, but there's just no way to get beyond their skin. And by and by, I've got the impression that most of those whose names have come upon us, share one flaw between them. They were driven by greed. Edward is different, and quite singular. Maybe it's your way of introducing and explaining him, but to me he's the only medieval human being I can try to understand by today's standards. He was neither greedy nor cunning. He set out as a spoiled and headstrong kid, expecting to have his every wish fulfilled, for sure, but knowing very little about any other way to reach that end, apart from issuing commands. That his position as a king had its limitations, that it was a part, defined by rules, to which others expected him to conform, no matter what his own inclinations might be, and that his transgressions could backfire, must have come as a cruel shock to him. At first, he didn't know his place, and when he knew it, he didn't like it.<BR/><BR/>This is just my opinion. I don't think that Despenser affair had anything to do with love or sex. I think Edward had mentally resigned, long before he was deposed. He didn't feel up to the whole kingship thing any more, so he left the kinging to those who enjoyed it -- the greedy ones --, and expected that they assured his peace and pleasure in return. Unfortunately, he overestimated their talent to ride the tiger.<BR/><BR/>Leaving the last word to you, I promise that I shall try to exert myself a bit more, and come up with a comment now and then, in the future!GeorgeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01661452433831783193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-20252369594118972092008-02-27T11:40:00.000+00:002008-02-27T11:40:00.000+00:00Hi GeorgeD! Really is good to see you back. Glad...Hi GeorgeD! Really is good to see you back. Glad you enjoyed the debate about Ed's alleged death - unfortunately, I still have a ways to go - I picked up no fewer than 3 recently published non-fiction books over Xmas which stated the red-hot poker death as certain fact!<BR/><BR/>I wonder why the Popppelau description is sometimes not taken seriously - after all, what motive would he have for lying about Rich's appearance?<BR/><BR/>And thank you very much for your kind comments! I'll even forgive you for not being especially interested in Ed II... (/joke ;) I wish too that there were more history blogs around. It would still be great to read your comments, even if it's totally off-topic - it would be really interesting to hear about parallels between events in Ed's life and other people, for example.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-13820265862868170902008-02-27T05:54:00.000+00:002008-02-27T05:54:00.000+00:00Dear Alienore,thank you very much for welcoming me...Dear Alienore,<BR/><BR/>thank you very much for welcoming me back in the flock! I'm ever so sorry for being such an unreliable customer, and have to confess that my own blog is nothing more than a -- up till now, completely failed -- attempt to cure an apparently chronic condition of writer's block. However, whenever I'm around, I never fail to read, or catch up, on your blog. It's absolutely admirable, and you've fully convinced me of Edward's long surviving his alleged (hot poker, lol) death. What a stunning chain of evidence that was ... wow!<BR/><BR/>As to Poppelau, to me, he sounds perfectly convincing, above all, since he is describing what are clearly the typical Plantagenet 'long and lank' features -- and how should Poppelau (or his redactor) have known about those? Indeed, how anyone can believe in that little-hunchback-withered-arm-Gollum caricature that is depicted by the chronicles, is beyond me. <BR/><BR/>I'm much interested in history from 900 up to 1500, but not especially English history, and not especially Edward II. There are lots of riddles I'd like to see discussed, and it's a matter of deep regret to me that the net doesn't contain more blogs like yours, dealing with other topics (Isabeau de Bavière, for instance, or the Borgias, or the German emperor Henry IV). For the time being, to me, your blog is by far the best around, and I'm as grateful as ever for all of the priceless information and insight you're providing. However, since most of what I know about Edward II has been learned from you, I can hardly contribute something of real merit to your comment section. Most of what I know is, unfortunately, off-topic.GeorgeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01661452433831783193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-48733853428463939982008-02-26T09:19:00.000+00:002008-02-26T09:19:00.000+00:00Hi, GeorgeD - I was wondering where you were! Nic...Hi, GeorgeD - I was wondering where you were! Nice to see you again!<BR/><BR/>I've heard that Poppelau description of Rich III - it is odd, the way it's so often ignored. Mary Clive (I think that's her name) mentions it in her biog of Edward IV, but discounts it.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-84655974701064280182008-02-26T05:59:00.000+00:002008-02-26T05:59:00.000+00:00Since the question of Richard III's and Henry the ...Since the question of Richard III's and Henry the Lion's appearance has been raised here, let me, please, state two things:<BR/><BR/>1. There exists a description of what Richard III looked like, which seems to be little known -- or much disregarded -- by English historians. The German knight Nikolaus von Poppelau left it, together with a report of a voyage to England he made in 1484. Poppelau's original -- Latin-- text is lost, but there is a German rendition contained in a compilation from the 18th century. My Richard biography treats Poppelau as a swashbuckler, and whether he really conversed as much with Richard as he claimed, or even spoke with him at all, may indeed be doubtful. It's however more than just probable that he really saw him. By Poppelau's description, then, Richard was very tall -- "three fingers" taller than Poppelau, who claimed to be an exceptionally strong male --, but slender, not "thick-set", with "quite subtle" arms and legs; whatever that last expression means, to me it spells "longshanks".<BR/><BR/>2. Now, for Henry the Lion. During that glorious time between 1933 and 1945, Henry the Lion was rediscovered as the great 'colonisator' of the East, the stalwart warrior who stood guard against yon sinister slavonic hordes; and therefore, a zealous band of nazis proceeded to open his grave at the cathedral of Brunswick, in 1935. Nobody had the courage to even discuss what they discovered, during the next ten years. But the sting hurt deeply, and the spirit of sacred germanhood was not so easily overcome, after 1945. So, in 1952, German historians profited from their new-found freedom, by beginning to passionately dispute the identity of the corpse from the Brunswick vault. Just imagine the horror -- the Lion's coffin was occupied by a heavy-set black-haired dwarf of 1.62 m (= 5.3 ft), whose one leg was 4 inches shorter than the other! To make matters still more ridiculous, alongside the coffin was found a skeleton -- which was, in 1935, thought to be a female, e.g. Henry's second wife --, measuring legendary 2 meters (= 6.5 ft). Now this second skeleton had apparently been been pressed flat and elongated by whatever weighed upon it; however, its owner, in life, must still have been towering to the impressive height of 6.2 ft. So, in 1974, someone whose name I've not been able to discover, had the ingenious idea, just from looking at the photos, to swap the skeletons' sexes. The tall one must have been Henry, the dwarfish one his wife. I suppose everyone felt better, after that, and the city of Brunswick, above all, embraced this explanation wholeheartedly.<BR/><BR/>However, it's rather obviously nothing but an instance of wishful thinking. Henry's accident in 1194, where he is reported to have broken his hip, fits very well with the black-haired dwarf's injured and badly healed hip, and Henry's wife was ... -- Maud, daughter of Henry II of England and Eleonore d'Aquitaine, sister of Richard the Lionheart, and great aunt of Edward Longshanks. The feature of giant statures was running in her family, wasn't it? So, I think, in Henry's case we may suppose that even good feeding in childhood didn't make a nobleman grow taller than the average human, and that this case of nature vs. nurture should be decided in favor of the genes.GeorgeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01661452433831783193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-25032371732676016512008-02-22T18:28:00.000+00:002008-02-22T18:28:00.000+00:00LOL, this comment thread is turning into a lot of ...LOL, this comment thread is turning into a lot of fun! I prefer Edwarella, myself. It has a nice ring. ;)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-2866567910040774742008-02-22T16:21:00.000+00:002008-02-22T16:21:00.000+00:00"there's so much consensus regarding her good look..."there's so much consensus regarding her good looks, she probably was genuinely extremely attractive. She and Edward must have made a very handsome couple!"<BR/><BR/>You would've thought Edward III would have been quite the looker coming from the 14th Century version of 'Brangelina'. Now would they be 'Edwarella' or 'Isabeard'? 'Isabeard' is perfect, especially given Ed's sexual tastes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-56298144718142619372008-02-22T16:16:00.000+00:002008-02-22T16:16:00.000+00:00Oh Gabrielle, that gave me such a laugh! I'm sure ...Oh Gabrielle, that gave me such a laugh! I'm sure he was pretty clever at getting Ed to let him have anything he wanted, but, like I said, I am biased :-) He may have been unscrupulous and greedy and sometimes a little bit - er - nasty, but I just like to think he also had some feelings of affection for Edward too - after all, he did stay with him at the end when he could just have scarpered off on his own. Go on.... just humour me!<BR/><BR/>As for Nefs - a multi-purpose kitchen utensil perhaps. Handy for alms, salt, wine or for hiding the castle keys in an emergency ('cause no-one would ever think of looking in *such* an expensive looking object!LOLJules Frusherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207281934232383811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-29917485369932739172008-02-22T16:10:00.000+00:002008-02-22T16:10:00.000+00:00Yes Susan, poor Hugh is so misunderstood. He had t...Yes Susan, poor Hugh is so misunderstood. He had the best of motives, really.Gabriele Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205770868139083575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-88167477566446729252008-02-22T16:06:00.000+00:002008-02-22T16:06:00.000+00:00Gabriele, that moved me to tears. So touching of H...Gabriele, that moved me to tears. So touching of Hugh to realize the dreadful burden that land was placing on other people . . .Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-18922160562946586482008-02-22T15:43:00.000+00:002008-02-22T15:43:00.000+00:00*Falls off chair laughing* Carole: interesting poi...*Falls off chair laughing* <BR/><BR/>Carole: interesting point! There's an article called 'It's not easy being a queen, even when you're a king' (link on my sidebar) which says the same thing. It says Despenser may have been a 'cunning heterosexual', which I think is just a great phrase!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-30725163291514976912008-02-22T15:24:00.000+00:002008-02-22T15:24:00.000+00:00LOL, Gabriele, that sounds about right!LOL, Gabriele, that sounds about right!Carolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573732617118300609noreply@blogger.com