If you're interested in Edward II, his father, his son, and the times in which they lived, check out our our new Yahoo group! Love to see you there for discussions!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefirst3edwards/
26 January, 2006
21 January, 2006
PhD thesis on Isabella (Katherine Gretchen Allocco)
You can find the thesis here.
(warning: PDF file, 3.8MB)
I can't tell you how excited I was to stumble on this online a few months ago. A feminist analysis of Queen Isabella, re-assessing her mostly-ignored role in English political life prior to 1325 - wonderful. Exactly what I need, I thought: a really good, scholarly, re-appraisal of Isabella's life. I settled down to read with enormous anticipation.
By the end, however, I realised I was wrong. This thesis is not about Isabella's political and intercessory role, but should be sent to the Vatican immediately, for Isabella's immediate inclusion into the list of saints. Sancto subito! I had no idea Isabella - or anyone - was so utterly perfect in every way, and never did anything wrong, ever. According to Allocco, her every action was fully justified and the only 'right' thing to do. And not only was Isabella important, she was probably the most important person in the whole of medieval England. I've never had the misfortune to read any bio that is so incredibly biased. Allocco makes Weir's recent overly indulgent bio of Queen Isabella seem viciously hostile.
Unfortunately, I have never in all my days read anything quite so shoddily researched and presented as Katherine Gretchen Allocco's thesis. The typos are numerous - I found myself puzzling over the word 'wire' before realising Allocco meant 'wife' - and I can't help but wonder if she actually picked up a book on Edward II's reign, as the (again, numerous) errors she makes are truly mind-boggling. Many times I did a double-take, re-reading a sentence, thinking "did she really write that??!! Why?? How?? For the love of God, how??"
Here are just some of the howlers Allocco makes - time does not permit me to write all of them, as it would take me a week at least (many thanks for the help I received in spotting some of these):
1) On p. 80, Allocco correctly states that Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester,was killed at Bannockburn. So why, in the name of sanity, does she state on p. 130, having just described the loss at Bannockburn, that the Earl of Gloucester 'kept a low profile' after the battle?? Of course he did; the poor man was dead. About as low a profile as you can get. What an embarrassing mistake! Really, this point is vital, as Gloucester's death was the key to the younger Despenser's later rise to power, as he was married to Gloucester's eldest sister Eleanor and inherited a great deal of the Clare wealth. How can Allocco write a PhD thesis on Edward II and Isabella and not know that Gloucester was killed at Bannockburn? How can she not know? It's like writing a history of American politics during WW2 and not realising that Roosevelt died before the end of the war! This was a mistake that, I have to admit, made me howl with derisive laughter.
2) We 'learn' that Philip IV ruled for 46 years - in fact that was his total lifespan (b. 1268, d. 1314). He ruled France for 29 years, 1285-1314.
3) On p. 75, Allocco talks about Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford (married in 1302 to Edward II's sister Elizabeth) and says that he turned against Isabella in 1330. Umm, no, dearie; Humphrey was killed at Boroughbridge in 1322, fighting against his brother-in-law's army, as anyone with the slightest knowledge ofEdward's reign knows. I think you must mean one of his sons.
4) The ancestry of Blanche of Artois and her sons Thomas and Henry of Lancaster is apparently 'unknown'; p. 73, footnote 25. Blanche's ancestry is, au contraire, very well-known: she was the niece of Louis IX, married first Enrique, King of Navarre, which marriage produced Isabella's mother Jeanne of Navarre, then married Edmund of Lancaster, Edward I's brother. Thomas and Henry of Lancaster were thus Isabella's uncles, the half-brothers of her mother, and Blanche was Isabella's maternal grandmother. Again, I struggle with the incredible ineptitude Allocco displays here - she says she is 'unable to find' Blanche's accurate genealogy. Where the hell did she look?? It's perfectly well-known!
5) p. 81, footnote 61 has Isabella writing a letter to Edward II's favourite Roger Damory in November 1326, when he had in fact died in March 1322. (Allocco presumably means Damory's brother, Richard.) This is a bad mistake, given that it occurs in the middle of her discussion about the family of Edward II's niece Elizabeth de Clare, Roger Damory's wife. And it's a truly horrendous mistake considering that a few lines earlier, she said that he was 'executed' in 1322 (he wasn't, though he did die then). On page 275, she correctly states that the letter of 1326 was sent to RICHARD Damory, who was Roger's brother, but then incorrectly identifies him as Edward's former favourite. Didn't she read her own work at all?? Did nobody proof-read this thesis??
6) A really bizarre comment occurs at one point (p. 41, footnote 41). : Allocco quotes an article which 'claims' that Edward I wanted his son (the future Edward II) to marry Margaret, the Maid of Norway (d. 1290, aged about 7), not Isabella. This is a well-known fact! Edward II could hardly have been betrothed to Isabella in 1290, as she was years away from being born. Why does Allocco state this as though it's an exciting new fact?
7) Allocco gets many titles and names wrong: Isabella and Edward's second son John of Eltham was Earl of Cornwall, not Kent (p. 172). The Earl of Winchester was Hugh Despenser the Elder, not the Younger (p. 300). And neither Despenser was ever Regent of England (p. 256). The Dowager Queen of England was not 'Margaret of Provence' (p. 185). At one point, Allocco even refers to Edward II and Isabella's elder daughter as Isabella of Woodstock, although in other places she sensationally manages to get the name (Eleanor) correct.
The misidentification of the younger Despenser as Regent is a worse mistake than might first appear. It was because Despenser didn't dare to allow Edward II to leave England in 1325 (the only reason he could have been Regent is that Edward II left him behind in England) that Isabella was sent to negotiate in France in her husband's place. While in France she met Mortimer and they planned the invasion of England. This demonstrates Allocco's complete failure to comprehend the political events her subject was involved in.
8) Allocco again demonstrates her complete failure to understand the complex politics and machinations of the year 1325 by stating (p. 212) that Isabella travelled to France in March that year, accompanied by her son. I don't have time to go into the incredible ignorance displayed by this single statement, but suffice to say that I have never read any other text on this subject which was so staggeringly ill-informed.
9) pp. 241-2 sees Isabella 'sweeping' into London, 'storming' the Tower (personally?) in October 1326. Nope, afraid not: Isabella deliberately did not enter London at this time, and didn't go there until January 1327. P. 244 has her son John being 'rescued' from the Tower, which is interesting, as he wasn't a prisoner (he was Edward II's son too, for goodness' sake). On p. 245 Allocco presents Isabella as a soldier, who 'chased' her husband out of Neath and captured him. She wasn't a soldier; she was a woman, she did not fight, and she was nowhere near Neath anyway. Page 246 has Hugh Despenser imprisoned at Kenilworth - in fact, that was Edward II.
10) Katherine Allocco somehow - and I cannot begin to imagine how - confuses Parliaments which were in session more than 3 years apart, confusing the Parliament that met after Mortimer's arrest in 1330 with the Parliament that was meeting when Edward II's death was announced in September 1327. She writes that Gourney, Ockle, and Maltravers were listed as criminals at the time of Edward II's funeral and that Isabella was determined "to see Edward II avenged." (Despite saying near the beginning of the thesis that Isabella may have had her husband killed)
I don't even want to go into Katherine Allocco's incredibly, even ludicrously, biased interpretations of Isabella's relationships with anyone who happened to disagree with her. It's far too depressing and awful, as is her insistence that Isabella was solely responsible for every good thing that happened in England between 1327 and 1330, but not responsible at all for anything negative. I'll leave it to my readers to follow up that themselves!
Just a couple of examples anyway, to illustrate my points: Allocco claims that Isabella was solely in charge during the period 1327-30, but absolves her of any responsibility in the judicial murder of the Earl of Kent because 'she had no reason' to kill him - only Mortimer did. Elsewhere, Allocco argues that Mortimer had little if any power, so how did he manage to have Kent killed - a man who was son, brother and uncle of kings? What was his reason, and why was it different from Isabella's? Apparently, Katherine Allocco didn't find such debate relevant.
Allocco's attitude to her sources is irritating: any chronicle that dares to be even slightly critical of her beloved Isabella is dismissed as 'propaganda to blacken her name' (and written by a misogynist monk who couldn't cope with powerful women, naturally) while any source hostile to Edward II or the Despensers is taken at face value and assumed to be 100% true, as is any chronicle favourable to Isabella. Obviously, every chronicler had his (and it's always 'his') own opinions and prejudices and reasons for writing which must be taken into account when assessing them, but Allocco's airy dismissal of the chronicles which state Isabella's role in Kent's death, say, simply because they don't fit in with the image of Isabella she wishes to project, is appalling scholarship.
Of course, it's very easy to say for Allocco to 'prove' that Isabella was not greedy when she doesn't mention her income, stolen lands, cash grants, money appropriated from Bruce, or the fact that she refused to give her daughter-in-law Phiippa the dower lands she was due as Queen (and when Isabella finally did, she immediately helped herself to lands of greater value).
Allocco hilariously claims in her last chapter that she can't possibly be expected to know the reasons for Edward III's coup of 1330 against his mother and Mortimer - oh, I don't know, maybe he was just in a teenage strop that day? Or, just possibly, that he was sick of the way they were running his kingdom into the ground, and he was afraid for his life?? Allocco's attitude to Edward III's seizure of power is one of total disbelief: how could the naughty boy do that to his perfect mother, who was doing a perfect job, and being, you know, all powerful and perfect? How dare the King of England take power in his own country? Obviously he had issues with powerful women, and was a total misogynist.
Contrary to what Allocco says, Isabella wasn't her son's chief counsellor after 1330, or much involved in government at all, though it's true that Edward III treated her leniently. Allocco says that the Nottingham coup comes across as hastily organised, which I think is beyond question, but I believe that Edward III had been plotting against his mother and Mortimer for many months, even years, patiently building a party of young men he knew to be loyal only to himself, and took an opportunity to rid himself of Isabella and Mortimer as soon as one presented itself. And yes, the coup was directed at the saintly Isabella as much as her lover - but of course, Edward III wasn't going to execute his own mother.
To be fair, some of the thesis is interesting; the parts about Isabella's household seem quite well done, although little more than a list of what Isabella owned, wore and ate, and who worked for her. The parts on her patronage and intercession are also fairly good, although predictably Allocco drastically over-estimates Isabella's significance, and a lot of what she writes in the thesis is more or less taken from any number of general histories of England, only far more inaccurately.
But on the whole, I believe that both Isabella and Edward deserve far better than this shabby, shoddy nonsense, written by someone who doesn't come anywhere near to an understanding of the complex politics and personalities of Edward II's reign, and which reflects very badly on anyone who had anything to do with it. I've only covered a small part of the sheer awfulness of it, and I'm very depressed.
Oh well, she got her doctorate out of it. One can only pity Katherine Allocco's undergraduates.
(warning: PDF file, 3.8MB)
I can't tell you how excited I was to stumble on this online a few months ago. A feminist analysis of Queen Isabella, re-assessing her mostly-ignored role in English political life prior to 1325 - wonderful. Exactly what I need, I thought: a really good, scholarly, re-appraisal of Isabella's life. I settled down to read with enormous anticipation.
By the end, however, I realised I was wrong. This thesis is not about Isabella's political and intercessory role, but should be sent to the Vatican immediately, for Isabella's immediate inclusion into the list of saints. Sancto subito! I had no idea Isabella - or anyone - was so utterly perfect in every way, and never did anything wrong, ever. According to Allocco, her every action was fully justified and the only 'right' thing to do. And not only was Isabella important, she was probably the most important person in the whole of medieval England. I've never had the misfortune to read any bio that is so incredibly biased. Allocco makes Weir's recent overly indulgent bio of Queen Isabella seem viciously hostile.
Unfortunately, I have never in all my days read anything quite so shoddily researched and presented as Katherine Gretchen Allocco's thesis. The typos are numerous - I found myself puzzling over the word 'wire' before realising Allocco meant 'wife' - and I can't help but wonder if she actually picked up a book on Edward II's reign, as the (again, numerous) errors she makes are truly mind-boggling. Many times I did a double-take, re-reading a sentence, thinking "did she really write that??!! Why?? How?? For the love of God, how??"
Here are just some of the howlers Allocco makes - time does not permit me to write all of them, as it would take me a week at least (many thanks for the help I received in spotting some of these):
1) On p. 80, Allocco correctly states that Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester,was killed at Bannockburn. So why, in the name of sanity, does she state on p. 130, having just described the loss at Bannockburn, that the Earl of Gloucester 'kept a low profile' after the battle?? Of course he did; the poor man was dead. About as low a profile as you can get. What an embarrassing mistake! Really, this point is vital, as Gloucester's death was the key to the younger Despenser's later rise to power, as he was married to Gloucester's eldest sister Eleanor and inherited a great deal of the Clare wealth. How can Allocco write a PhD thesis on Edward II and Isabella and not know that Gloucester was killed at Bannockburn? How can she not know? It's like writing a history of American politics during WW2 and not realising that Roosevelt died before the end of the war! This was a mistake that, I have to admit, made me howl with derisive laughter.
2) We 'learn' that Philip IV ruled for 46 years - in fact that was his total lifespan (b. 1268, d. 1314). He ruled France for 29 years, 1285-1314.
3) On p. 75, Allocco talks about Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford (married in 1302 to Edward II's sister Elizabeth) and says that he turned against Isabella in 1330. Umm, no, dearie; Humphrey was killed at Boroughbridge in 1322, fighting against his brother-in-law's army, as anyone with the slightest knowledge ofEdward's reign knows. I think you must mean one of his sons.
4) The ancestry of Blanche of Artois and her sons Thomas and Henry of Lancaster is apparently 'unknown'; p. 73, footnote 25. Blanche's ancestry is, au contraire, very well-known: she was the niece of Louis IX, married first Enrique, King of Navarre, which marriage produced Isabella's mother Jeanne of Navarre, then married Edmund of Lancaster, Edward I's brother. Thomas and Henry of Lancaster were thus Isabella's uncles, the half-brothers of her mother, and Blanche was Isabella's maternal grandmother. Again, I struggle with the incredible ineptitude Allocco displays here - she says she is 'unable to find' Blanche's accurate genealogy. Where the hell did she look?? It's perfectly well-known!
5) p. 81, footnote 61 has Isabella writing a letter to Edward II's favourite Roger Damory in November 1326, when he had in fact died in March 1322. (Allocco presumably means Damory's brother, Richard.) This is a bad mistake, given that it occurs in the middle of her discussion about the family of Edward II's niece Elizabeth de Clare, Roger Damory's wife. And it's a truly horrendous mistake considering that a few lines earlier, she said that he was 'executed' in 1322 (he wasn't, though he did die then). On page 275, she correctly states that the letter of 1326 was sent to RICHARD Damory, who was Roger's brother, but then incorrectly identifies him as Edward's former favourite. Didn't she read her own work at all?? Did nobody proof-read this thesis??
6) A really bizarre comment occurs at one point (p. 41, footnote 41). : Allocco quotes an article which 'claims' that Edward I wanted his son (the future Edward II) to marry Margaret, the Maid of Norway (d. 1290, aged about 7), not Isabella. This is a well-known fact! Edward II could hardly have been betrothed to Isabella in 1290, as she was years away from being born. Why does Allocco state this as though it's an exciting new fact?
7) Allocco gets many titles and names wrong: Isabella and Edward's second son John of Eltham was Earl of Cornwall, not Kent (p. 172). The Earl of Winchester was Hugh Despenser the Elder, not the Younger (p. 300). And neither Despenser was ever Regent of England (p. 256). The Dowager Queen of England was not 'Margaret of Provence' (p. 185). At one point, Allocco even refers to Edward II and Isabella's elder daughter as Isabella of Woodstock, although in other places she sensationally manages to get the name (Eleanor) correct.
The misidentification of the younger Despenser as Regent is a worse mistake than might first appear. It was because Despenser didn't dare to allow Edward II to leave England in 1325 (the only reason he could have been Regent is that Edward II left him behind in England) that Isabella was sent to negotiate in France in her husband's place. While in France she met Mortimer and they planned the invasion of England. This demonstrates Allocco's complete failure to comprehend the political events her subject was involved in.
8) Allocco again demonstrates her complete failure to understand the complex politics and machinations of the year 1325 by stating (p. 212) that Isabella travelled to France in March that year, accompanied by her son. I don't have time to go into the incredible ignorance displayed by this single statement, but suffice to say that I have never read any other text on this subject which was so staggeringly ill-informed.
9) pp. 241-2 sees Isabella 'sweeping' into London, 'storming' the Tower (personally?) in October 1326. Nope, afraid not: Isabella deliberately did not enter London at this time, and didn't go there until January 1327. P. 244 has her son John being 'rescued' from the Tower, which is interesting, as he wasn't a prisoner (he was Edward II's son too, for goodness' sake). On p. 245 Allocco presents Isabella as a soldier, who 'chased' her husband out of Neath and captured him. She wasn't a soldier; she was a woman, she did not fight, and she was nowhere near Neath anyway. Page 246 has Hugh Despenser imprisoned at Kenilworth - in fact, that was Edward II.
10) Katherine Allocco somehow - and I cannot begin to imagine how - confuses Parliaments which were in session more than 3 years apart, confusing the Parliament that met after Mortimer's arrest in 1330 with the Parliament that was meeting when Edward II's death was announced in September 1327. She writes that Gourney, Ockle, and Maltravers were listed as criminals at the time of Edward II's funeral and that Isabella was determined "to see Edward II avenged." (Despite saying near the beginning of the thesis that Isabella may have had her husband killed)
I don't even want to go into Katherine Allocco's incredibly, even ludicrously, biased interpretations of Isabella's relationships with anyone who happened to disagree with her. It's far too depressing and awful, as is her insistence that Isabella was solely responsible for every good thing that happened in England between 1327 and 1330, but not responsible at all for anything negative. I'll leave it to my readers to follow up that themselves!
Just a couple of examples anyway, to illustrate my points: Allocco claims that Isabella was solely in charge during the period 1327-30, but absolves her of any responsibility in the judicial murder of the Earl of Kent because 'she had no reason' to kill him - only Mortimer did. Elsewhere, Allocco argues that Mortimer had little if any power, so how did he manage to have Kent killed - a man who was son, brother and uncle of kings? What was his reason, and why was it different from Isabella's? Apparently, Katherine Allocco didn't find such debate relevant.
Allocco's attitude to her sources is irritating: any chronicle that dares to be even slightly critical of her beloved Isabella is dismissed as 'propaganda to blacken her name' (and written by a misogynist monk who couldn't cope with powerful women, naturally) while any source hostile to Edward II or the Despensers is taken at face value and assumed to be 100% true, as is any chronicle favourable to Isabella. Obviously, every chronicler had his (and it's always 'his') own opinions and prejudices and reasons for writing which must be taken into account when assessing them, but Allocco's airy dismissal of the chronicles which state Isabella's role in Kent's death, say, simply because they don't fit in with the image of Isabella she wishes to project, is appalling scholarship.
Of course, it's very easy to say for Allocco to 'prove' that Isabella was not greedy when she doesn't mention her income, stolen lands, cash grants, money appropriated from Bruce, or the fact that she refused to give her daughter-in-law Phiippa the dower lands she was due as Queen (and when Isabella finally did, she immediately helped herself to lands of greater value).
Allocco hilariously claims in her last chapter that she can't possibly be expected to know the reasons for Edward III's coup of 1330 against his mother and Mortimer - oh, I don't know, maybe he was just in a teenage strop that day? Or, just possibly, that he was sick of the way they were running his kingdom into the ground, and he was afraid for his life?? Allocco's attitude to Edward III's seizure of power is one of total disbelief: how could the naughty boy do that to his perfect mother, who was doing a perfect job, and being, you know, all powerful and perfect? How dare the King of England take power in his own country? Obviously he had issues with powerful women, and was a total misogynist.
Contrary to what Allocco says, Isabella wasn't her son's chief counsellor after 1330, or much involved in government at all, though it's true that Edward III treated her leniently. Allocco says that the Nottingham coup comes across as hastily organised, which I think is beyond question, but I believe that Edward III had been plotting against his mother and Mortimer for many months, even years, patiently building a party of young men he knew to be loyal only to himself, and took an opportunity to rid himself of Isabella and Mortimer as soon as one presented itself. And yes, the coup was directed at the saintly Isabella as much as her lover - but of course, Edward III wasn't going to execute his own mother.
To be fair, some of the thesis is interesting; the parts about Isabella's household seem quite well done, although little more than a list of what Isabella owned, wore and ate, and who worked for her. The parts on her patronage and intercession are also fairly good, although predictably Allocco drastically over-estimates Isabella's significance, and a lot of what she writes in the thesis is more or less taken from any number of general histories of England, only far more inaccurately.
But on the whole, I believe that both Isabella and Edward deserve far better than this shabby, shoddy nonsense, written by someone who doesn't come anywhere near to an understanding of the complex politics and personalities of Edward II's reign, and which reflects very badly on anyone who had anything to do with it. I've only covered a small part of the sheer awfulness of it, and I'm very depressed.
Oh well, she got her doctorate out of it. One can only pity Katherine Allocco's undergraduates.
13 January, 2006
Happy Belated 2006!
Reading books and magazines during my holiday has reinforced my (already strong) belief that a re-appraisal of poor old Edward II is long overdue. Quotes such as "Edward II - great of body and little of brain"; "bending over and taking the Edward II treatment"; "Edward II ran away at Bannockburn" (not true). Am I the only person (apart from Susan! :) who actually likes Edward, and thinks he's been really hard done by? I'm also getting heartily sick of all the modern apologists for Queen Isabella, who do their best to construct a narrative of a powerful, influential woman, but then deny that she might have been involved in anything nasty or distasteful, such as Edward's imprisonment and murder, and Kent's execution. Grr! I'll be looking at this very shortly!
15 December, 2005
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!
I'm going on my Christmas holidays very soon, so this is my last post till January. Wishing everybody a fabulous festive season.
In the New Year...lots more posts on Edward and his life! :)
In the New Year...lots more posts on Edward and his life! :)
09 December, 2005
Edward II's sexuality
I knew that'd get your attention! :) I've often seen Edward described as 'England's only openly gay king' or something similar, and it seems to be taken as historical fact that he was homosexual. This is based at least in part on the previously-mentioned Hollywood film Braveheart, where Edward appears screamingly camp and correspondingly incompetent, in a manner I for one find disturbingly homophobic and unpleasant. His lover even gets thrown out of a window by Edward's father (this didn't happen in reality). A much more sympathetic portayal can be seen in Derek Jarman's 1991 adaption of Marlowe's play - I find the film a rather wonderful piece of work. However, this also over-simplifies the situation, and Edward and his lovers Gaveston and Spencer are shown simply as the victims of homophobia, with the English nobles simply unable to cope with the king's different lifestyle. An important thing to remember is that it's only been fairly recently in history that people have defined themselves as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Whoever Edward slept with, he couldn't have thought of himself as gay: so it is really possible to argue today that he was, when his society had no concept of this? In the 14th century, declarations of love were bandied around pretty freely. Edward's cousin, Thomas Earl of Lancaster, had a retainer called Sir Robert Holland, and some of the contemporary chronicles speak of the Earl's love for Holland. So when we read the comments of the Vita Edwardi Secundi - a chronicle of Edward which ends abruptly in 1325 - that "I do not remember to have heard that one man so loved another" we should be careful not to interpret this in a modern way. We know that Edward referred to Piers Gaveston as ‘my brother Perrot’. However, the Meaux chronicle states that "Edward took too much delight in sodomy" (written decades later). The Flores history calls the friendship of Edward and Piers "beyond the bounds of moderation" and speaks of Edward’s desire for "wicked and forbidden sex" and the Westminster chronicler says that Piers led Edward to reject the sweet embraces of his wife.
None of this necessarily proves that Edward really did sleep with Gaveston, of course: only that some of his contemporaries and later writers thought that he did. Hugh le Despenser, Edward’s presumed last lover, was said by the chronicler Froissart, writing in the 1360s or 1370s, to have been castrated during his execution, because of his sodomy with the king. This could, again, be a matter of perception than reality. The point is, that until someone invents a time machine so that we can go back to Edward’s bedchamber, we’ll never know who he slept with.
Edward fathered 4 children by Isabella, but this proves nothing: kings needed heirs and we have no way of knowing how he felt about performing his marital duty. Edward is also known to have fathered an illegitimate son, called Adam, who crops up in a wardrobe account of 1322 and is described as "Ade filio domini Regis bastardo": "Adam, bastard son of our lord the king". He was provided with equipment for the Scottish campaign, but was accompanied by his tutor Hugh Chastilloun, which suggests he was somewhere around 14 or 15. After this, he disappears from the records and is assumed to have died on the campaign. The fact that Edward openly acknowledged the boy suggests that perhaps he had a relationship with the mother – if Adam had been the result of a one-night stand, could Edward really have been sure that Adam was his? Interestingly, Piers Gaveston also had an illegitimate daughter called Amie, as well as a legitimate one called Joan. We do not know the mothers of either Adam or Amie.
So there is direct evidence, via children, that Edward slept with at least 2 women. Clearly, there cannot be direct evidence that he slept with men, and we have to rely on what the chroniclers say (bearing in mind that they had their own prejudices and agendas) and also by our judgment of Edward’s actions. I personally think it is clear that Edward was emotionally reliant on men, whether he had sexual relations with them or not – although I also tend to think that he did. I strongly doubt that that it was the simple act of having sex with men that caused his downfall –the English nobles hated Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, whatever they did or didn’t do in bed. Piers was hated for overwhelmingly personal reasons – he was good-looking, had a sharp tongue and could knock the nobles off their horses at jousting events almost at will. Edward’s relationships with Gaveston and Despenser are fascinating topics, which I’ll be returning to soon.
None of this necessarily proves that Edward really did sleep with Gaveston, of course: only that some of his contemporaries and later writers thought that he did. Hugh le Despenser, Edward’s presumed last lover, was said by the chronicler Froissart, writing in the 1360s or 1370s, to have been castrated during his execution, because of his sodomy with the king. This could, again, be a matter of perception than reality. The point is, that until someone invents a time machine so that we can go back to Edward’s bedchamber, we’ll never know who he slept with.
Edward fathered 4 children by Isabella, but this proves nothing: kings needed heirs and we have no way of knowing how he felt about performing his marital duty. Edward is also known to have fathered an illegitimate son, called Adam, who crops up in a wardrobe account of 1322 and is described as "Ade filio domini Regis bastardo": "Adam, bastard son of our lord the king". He was provided with equipment for the Scottish campaign, but was accompanied by his tutor Hugh Chastilloun, which suggests he was somewhere around 14 or 15. After this, he disappears from the records and is assumed to have died on the campaign. The fact that Edward openly acknowledged the boy suggests that perhaps he had a relationship with the mother – if Adam had been the result of a one-night stand, could Edward really have been sure that Adam was his? Interestingly, Piers Gaveston also had an illegitimate daughter called Amie, as well as a legitimate one called Joan. We do not know the mothers of either Adam or Amie.
So there is direct evidence, via children, that Edward slept with at least 2 women. Clearly, there cannot be direct evidence that he slept with men, and we have to rely on what the chroniclers say (bearing in mind that they had their own prejudices and agendas) and also by our judgment of Edward’s actions. I personally think it is clear that Edward was emotionally reliant on men, whether he had sexual relations with them or not – although I also tend to think that he did. I strongly doubt that that it was the simple act of having sex with men that caused his downfall –the English nobles hated Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, whatever they did or didn’t do in bed. Piers was hated for overwhelmingly personal reasons – he was good-looking, had a sharp tongue and could knock the nobles off their horses at jousting events almost at will. Edward’s relationships with Gaveston and Despenser are fascinating topics, which I’ll be returning to soon.
07 December, 2005
A new novel of Edward II's reign
Edward II has traditionally been given a pretty raw deal in books, and fiction is no exception. For anyone interested in a more sympathetic portrayal, check out Susan Higginbotham's 2005 novel, The Traitor's Wife, an account of the reign seen through the eyes of Edward's niece and Hugh le Despenser's wife, Eleanor de Clare. Take a look at her website, too: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
(By the way, I have no connections with Susan, except as a fellow Edward sympathiser!)
(By the way, I have no connections with Susan, except as a fellow Edward sympathiser!)
04 December, 2005
Edward and Isabella's children, part 2
Many people seem to believe that Edward and Isabella only had 1 child, Edward III. In fact, they had FOUR children together. The others were:
John of Eltham, born 15 August 1316
Eleanor of Woodstock, born 18 June 1318
Joan of the Tower, born 5 July 1321
Again, counting back approximately 9 months before the births, it becomes quite clear that Edward and Isabella were together at the right times for Edward to have fathered them. In November/December 1315, they were at Clipstone in Sherwood Forest, a royal hunting lodge; in September/October 1317, they stayed together at Lincoln, Tickhill and and York; and in October/November 1320, at court in Westminster. It should also be noted that Mortimer was in Ireland during the conception periods of John of Eltham and Eleanor of Woodstock.
More importantly, perhaps, is to consider how exactly Edward might not have been the father. For this to be the case, of course, Isabella would have had to commit adultery with another man. Was this possible? I would say, definitely not. It's vital to remember that privacy is a modern invention, and Isabella as the queen of England probably had less privacy than anyone else in the country. She had a household of around 200 people, and was surrounded and watched all day, every day, and even at night would have shared a chamber with her ladies. The idea that she could have taken a lover without anyone noticing is frankly ludicrous! Plus, adultery at that time was a terrible crime for the queen - treason, in fact, because of the possibility that she would become pregnant and a 'bastard' child could become king.
What do the contemporary chronicles have to say about this? Surprise, surprise, absolutely nothing. Whatever people might have thought about Edward II's sexuality (which I'll be returning to in a future post) it never seems to have crossed anyone's mind that he wasn't the father of Isabella's children. And if it HAD crossed anyone's mind, we would definitely know about it - it would be one of the greatest scandals of the Middle Ages. If anyone had thought for a second that Edward III wasn't Edward II's son, nobody would have made him king in 1327. Nobody would have taken his claims to the French throne seriously, thus sparing Europe the 100 Years War. And if nobody at the time thought he was illegitimate, why are people seriously arguing nowadays that he was?? It betrays a deep lack of understanding of medieval realities, a failure even to pick up a history book and check the facts of Edward and Isabella's whereabouts (which are very well-known, for most of the reign) and an anachronistic and incorrect opinion of Edward's supposed sexuality, which will be the subject of my next post!
John of Eltham, born 15 August 1316
Eleanor of Woodstock, born 18 June 1318
Joan of the Tower, born 5 July 1321
Again, counting back approximately 9 months before the births, it becomes quite clear that Edward and Isabella were together at the right times for Edward to have fathered them. In November/December 1315, they were at Clipstone in Sherwood Forest, a royal hunting lodge; in September/October 1317, they stayed together at Lincoln, Tickhill and and York; and in October/November 1320, at court in Westminster. It should also be noted that Mortimer was in Ireland during the conception periods of John of Eltham and Eleanor of Woodstock.
More importantly, perhaps, is to consider how exactly Edward might not have been the father. For this to be the case, of course, Isabella would have had to commit adultery with another man. Was this possible? I would say, definitely not. It's vital to remember that privacy is a modern invention, and Isabella as the queen of England probably had less privacy than anyone else in the country. She had a household of around 200 people, and was surrounded and watched all day, every day, and even at night would have shared a chamber with her ladies. The idea that she could have taken a lover without anyone noticing is frankly ludicrous! Plus, adultery at that time was a terrible crime for the queen - treason, in fact, because of the possibility that she would become pregnant and a 'bastard' child could become king.
What do the contemporary chronicles have to say about this? Surprise, surprise, absolutely nothing. Whatever people might have thought about Edward II's sexuality (which I'll be returning to in a future post) it never seems to have crossed anyone's mind that he wasn't the father of Isabella's children. And if it HAD crossed anyone's mind, we would definitely know about it - it would be one of the greatest scandals of the Middle Ages. If anyone had thought for a second that Edward III wasn't Edward II's son, nobody would have made him king in 1327. Nobody would have taken his claims to the French throne seriously, thus sparing Europe the 100 Years War. And if nobody at the time thought he was illegitimate, why are people seriously arguing nowadays that he was?? It betrays a deep lack of understanding of medieval realities, a failure even to pick up a history book and check the facts of Edward and Isabella's whereabouts (which are very well-known, for most of the reign) and an anachronistic and incorrect opinion of Edward's supposed sexuality, which will be the subject of my next post!
Edward and Isabella's children
I've decided to make my first 'real' post a commentary on the children of Edward II and Isabella. It seems to be almost an accepted 'fact' on the web these days that Edward wasn't the father of Isabella's children, which is complete nonsense! Read on to learn the truth!
Many people have seen Mel Gibson's film Braveheart, a multi-Oscar-winning look at the life of Scottish hero William Wallace. In the film, there is a storyline that Wallace was the true father of Isabella's eldest child (who we can presume to be the future Edward III). Even today, a full 10 years or so after the film's release, I still read comments that this is a historical truth. Well, people, unless they had the ability to freeze sperm 700 years ago, this cannot be true. Wallace was executed in August 1305, and Isabella gave birth to her first child on 13 November 1312. Not only is the chronology totally impossible, but Isabella was only a child and still in France in 1305 - she married Edward II on 25 January 1308, and was never Princess of Wales as the film depicts her. Her date of birth is unknown, but is assumed to be 1295/6, so at the time of Wallace's death, she was probably around 9 or 10. I'm sure paedophilia wasn't the image of Wallace Gibson really wanted to portray!
It's also nonsense that her father-in-law, King Edward I, could have fathered her child. He died 7 July 1307, and it's probable that they never even met, unless it was when she was a child and still in France.
The truth is that we can be virtually certain that Edward II fathered all her children - at least, as certain as anybody can be regarding paternity. As I said above, the future Edward III was born 13 November 1312. If we count back 38 weeks, the full-term length of a pregnancy from the time of conception, we get 20 February - and we know what happened on this date: Edward II held an enormous (and hugely expensive) celebration at York to mark the birth of Joan, daughter of his great favourite, Piers Gaveston. The celebration lasted a week, and it seems that a combination of party spirits and (perhaps) seeing Gaveston's venture into fatherhood induced Edward and Isabella to start their own family. Edward and Isabella were certainly together in York at this time - Isabella sent Edward a letter from Northampton on 8 February to inform him that she was on her way. Coincidence, or not?! It's certainly a telling one. Even if the pregnancy was not full-term, no matter: Edward and Isabella remained together at York until well into March. Edward II was the father of Edward III.
Some people (including the novelist Paul Doherty, who holds a doctorate from Oxford on Edward and Isabella and should know better) have also postulated that Roger Mortimer (Baron of Wigmore and later Earl of March) was Edward III's father. He DID have an affair with Isabella, but it didn't begin until they were in France, in November/December 1325 - a full 13 years after Edward III's birth. And, to kill that particularly silly theory stone dead, Mortimer was in Ireland from September 1310 to July 1312 at the earliest, and possibly until January 1313.
Many people have seen Mel Gibson's film Braveheart, a multi-Oscar-winning look at the life of Scottish hero William Wallace. In the film, there is a storyline that Wallace was the true father of Isabella's eldest child (who we can presume to be the future Edward III). Even today, a full 10 years or so after the film's release, I still read comments that this is a historical truth. Well, people, unless they had the ability to freeze sperm 700 years ago, this cannot be true. Wallace was executed in August 1305, and Isabella gave birth to her first child on 13 November 1312. Not only is the chronology totally impossible, but Isabella was only a child and still in France in 1305 - she married Edward II on 25 January 1308, and was never Princess of Wales as the film depicts her. Her date of birth is unknown, but is assumed to be 1295/6, so at the time of Wallace's death, she was probably around 9 or 10. I'm sure paedophilia wasn't the image of Wallace Gibson really wanted to portray!
It's also nonsense that her father-in-law, King Edward I, could have fathered her child. He died 7 July 1307, and it's probable that they never even met, unless it was when she was a child and still in France.
The truth is that we can be virtually certain that Edward II fathered all her children - at least, as certain as anybody can be regarding paternity. As I said above, the future Edward III was born 13 November 1312. If we count back 38 weeks, the full-term length of a pregnancy from the time of conception, we get 20 February - and we know what happened on this date: Edward II held an enormous (and hugely expensive) celebration at York to mark the birth of Joan, daughter of his great favourite, Piers Gaveston. The celebration lasted a week, and it seems that a combination of party spirits and (perhaps) seeing Gaveston's venture into fatherhood induced Edward and Isabella to start their own family. Edward and Isabella were certainly together in York at this time - Isabella sent Edward a letter from Northampton on 8 February to inform him that she was on her way. Coincidence, or not?! It's certainly a telling one. Even if the pregnancy was not full-term, no matter: Edward and Isabella remained together at York until well into March. Edward II was the father of Edward III.
Some people (including the novelist Paul Doherty, who holds a doctorate from Oxford on Edward and Isabella and should know better) have also postulated that Roger Mortimer (Baron of Wigmore and later Earl of March) was Edward III's father. He DID have an affair with Isabella, but it didn't begin until they were in France, in November/December 1325 - a full 13 years after Edward III's birth. And, to kill that particularly silly theory stone dead, Mortimer was in Ireland from September 1310 to July 1312 at the earliest, and possibly until January 1313.
03 December, 2005
Introduction to the Blog
Hi there! This blog is my attempt to salvage the reputation of one of England's most-maligned kings, Edward II. Edward reigned from 1307 to 1327, and was famously deposed (and probably murdered) by his French queen, I sabella, and her lover Roger Mortimer. Now, I'm not denying that Edward was a disastrous king, but, in my opinion at least, he was a fascinating personality with many excellent character traits. He really gets it in the neck these days on-line, especially from people who assume that he wasn't really the father of his children - a charge which is endlessly recycled, and which annoys me immensely as there isn't a shred of evidence for it. I also believe there's a lot of homophobia (conscious or not) implicit in the criticism of him. I'll be looking at Edward's life and reign, his relationships with Gaveston and the Despensers and most importantly with Isabella, his deposition and presumed murder, and anything else which occurs as I go along...his strange (for his time) hobbies, the motives of the barons who opposed him, the legacy of his famous father....:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)