O calamity! To see authors quoting a primary source out of context!

"O calamity! To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains!"  (O monstrum! uidere uiros purpura et bisso nuper indutos nunc attritis uestibus incedere, et uinctos in compedibus recludi sub carcere!)

The above quotation comes from the Vita Edwardi Secundi (Life of Edward II, a contemporary chronicle written by a very well-informed man who was frequently critical of the king) and is often cited in modern works. The quotation is usually interpreted as the author harshly criticising the tyranny of Edward II and his friends the Despensers in and after 1322, following his execution of twenty-two(ish) Contrariants and the imprisonment of several dozen others, as for example:

- "The chroniclers are unanimous in their condemnation of what took place after 1322. 'O calamity,' the anonymous biographer of Edward II wrote, 'To see men, so recently clothed in purple and fine linen, now tied in rags bound and imprisoned in chains.'"  (Note that 'attired in rags' is changed to 'tied in rags'.)

- "The chroniclers, like most of the King's subjects, were horrified by the violence. 'Oh calamity!' cried the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi. 'To see men, so recently clothed in purple and fine linen, now tied in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains. The harshness of the king has increased so much that no one, however great or wise, dares to cross his will. The nobles of the realm are terrified by threats and penalties. The king's will has free play. Thus today might conquers reason, for whatever pleases the king, though lacking in reason, has the force of law.'"

(Although this is cited as one continuous text, the part beginning 'The harshness of the king...' actually appears in the Vita no fewer than eleven pages after the rest, and some of it is inaccurately quoted, including 'tied in rags'. See the end of this post.)

- "'Oh Calamity. To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains', wrote the author of Vita Edwardi at the sight of men imprisoned after Boroughbridge."

(For more info about the events of 1321/22, see here, here, here and here.)

Let's look at the quotation in its proper context.  The author of the Vita is discussing the aftermath of the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, when Andrew Harclay defeated the earls of Lancaster and Hereford and the other Contrariants, of whom the Vita says "puffed-up by the earl of Lancaster's protection, they killed those who opposed them, plundered those who offered no resistance, sparing no one," a quotation missing from most accounts of events in 1321/22.  A narrative portraying the Contrariants as innocent whiter-than-white freedom fighters bravely resisting a tyrannical king and his nasty favourite, who are unfairly and unjustly executed or imprisoned despite committing no real crimes, is favoured these days, and apparently we can't have the black and white moral certainties of the Bad Edward and Bad Despensers/Good Contrariants story messed up by accounts of Our Brave Heroic Lads killing and plundering non-combatants. The Vita's statement is in fact confirmed by numerous petitions and inquisitions of the early 1320s.

The author of the Vita, by the way, although he hated the Despensers and their behaviour, hated the Contrariants and theirs even more.  He strongly condemned the Despensers' greed, brutality and harshness, but pointed out that in August 1321 they had been "exiled [from England] out of malice" (Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young, 1957, p. 121) and that the Contrariants "had disgracefully destroyed the manors of both father and son; and further because they had taken for their own use and wasted the goods of the exiles, which ought rather to have gone to the treasury..."  He also declared that "in the judgement of some worthy persons the barons went too far in their persecution [of the Despensers]. For even if they found just reasons for banishment, they did not justly seize their goods. Why did they destroy their manors, for what reason did they extort ransoms from their retinues? Though formerly their cause had been just, they now turned right into wrong." (pp. 115-116)

Here's the 'O calamity!' quotation as it appears in its proper context, the end of the battle of Boroughbridge (Vita, pp. 124-125):

"...the earl of Lancaster made a truce with Andrew Harclay to keep the peace until the morrow; and when this was done each returned to his lodging. On that same night the sheriff of York came with a large force to attack the king's enemies; relying on his help, Andrew Harclay entered the town very early, and taking the earl of Lancaster and almost all the other knights and esquires scatheless, led them off to York and imprisoned them. Some left their horses and putting off their armour looked round for ancient worn-out garments, and took to the road as beggars. But their caution was of no avail, for not a single well-known man among them all escaped.
O calamity! To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains!  A marvellous thing and one indeed brought about by God's will and aid, that so scanty a company should in a moment overcome so many knights. For the earl's side were more than seven times as numerous as their adversaries." 

See the bit where the author calls the royalist victory over the Contrariants a 'marvellous thing' which happened with the will and aid of God? That's not quite the impression given in the secondary sources quoted above, is it?  The author is describing the desperate actions of noblemen and knights trying to flee from justice after rebelling against their king and committing numerous crimes against non-combatants, by throwing away their fine clothes and possessions and dressing as beggars - a story confirmed by numerous entries in the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous. Other men who had fought at Boroughbridge or otherwise rebelled against Edward "put on the habit of religion and other diverse habits in order to leave the realm or to hide more securely within the realm."*  John, Lord Mowbray, whose many acts of theft and extortion in 1321/22 are recorded in petitions of his indignant victims - he even robbed the church of Laughton-en-le-Morthen in Yorkshire, and imprisoned the parson of Rossington until he agreed to give Mowbray £200** - rid himself of "a coat of armour of great price, and a pack with robes and good fur" in an attempt to disguise himself and escape.  It didn't work, and he was hanged in York on 23 March with his fellow church-robber Sir Jocelyn Deyville and Roger, Lord Clifford.  Stephen Baret was another of the men who helped Mowbray steal the possessions of the people and church of Laughton, and was captured by the constable of Knaresborough Castle after Boroughbridge and subsequently executed in South Wales; he must have been another of the men who threw away his clothes, as he and four of his men were "taken bare."
[* Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, pp. 534-535;  ** The National Archives SC 8/7/301, SC 8/106/5274]

The author of the Vita was not, as some secondary sources claim, condemning Edward II for executing or imprisoning noblemen and knights and their families or saying that the king himself forced people to wear rags (or 'tied' them in rags, whatever that means) or that things in England were so bad in the 1320s that even noblemen could not afford to buy clothes. Far from being "horrified by the violence" of the 1322 executions, he was clearly out of sympathy with the rebels - and this from a man with a pretty low opinion of Edward II. To use the 'Oh calamity...' quotation as evidence that the author was condemning Edward's tyranny and the supposedly pitiful condition of his subjects, to use it without ever mentioning that the sentence immediately following it begins 'A marvellous thing' and that the author strongly disapproved of the actions of the Contrariants, is selective quotation at its worst.

Postscript: Returning to the other part cited above about Edward II's 'harshness', here's the quotation also in its proper context (Vita Edwardi Secundi, p. 136).  The author is now describing Edward's war with France in 1324 and his unwillingness to pay his soldiers, who were forced to pillage the Gascon countryside for food (which is borne out by letters sent to Edward and Hugh Despenser in 1324 from several men on the ground in Gascony):

"All were astonished that the king did not satisfy the treasury, since they could not live properly without wages, and the king had plenty of treasure. Many of his forbears amassed money; he alone has exceeded them all. Howbeit, the king's meanness is laid at Hugh [Despenser the Younger]'s door, like the other evils that afflict the court. Hence, many conspired to kill him, but the plot was discovered, some were captured and the rest fled.
Then the king ordered all the infantry to board their ships and stand out to sea, until the time should come for crossing to Gascony; and he put in command the Earl Warenne, John de St John, and other great men of the land, who likewise went on board not daring to resist. The king also sent letters to every county commanding and ordering that all who had returned from the army to their homes without leave should be arrested, and hanged forthwith without trials. The harshness of the king has today increased so much that no one, however great and wise, dares to cross his will. Thus parliaments, colloquies, and councils decide nothing these days. For the nobles of the realm, terrified by threats and the penalties inflicted on others, let the king's will have free play. Thus today will conquers reason. For whatever pleases the king, though lacking in reason, has the force of law."