tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post2557578432795645882..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: Edward II's Death and Afterlife Revisited (3): SurvivalKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-36373693509582469462016-05-23T12:12:19.073+01:002016-05-23T12:12:19.073+01:00Thank you :-) I don't mind at all if people we...Thank you :-) I don't mind at all if people weigh up the evidence and think about it and come to the conclusion that Edward died at Berkeley Castle in Sept 1327 after all. That's absolutely fine with me. What bugs me is when professional historians ignore all the evidence pointing to his survival and/or make silly, meaningless arguments (Nicholas Vincent's comments in his debate with Ian Mortimer in BBC History Magazine recently, for example - agh!)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-66370821416861296342016-05-23T12:02:22.741+01:002016-05-23T12:02:22.741+01:00You are quite right. I have read the arguments in ...You are quite right. I have read the arguments in favour of his survival, put forward in your book and in several others. Personally, I don't find them convincing, nor do I find the theories that Richard II, Henry VI, Edward VI or either of the princes in the Tower survived. But I respect your view. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-44837974225328811552016-05-23T11:57:28.199+01:002016-05-23T11:57:28.199+01:00We don't know for sure that he didn't die ...We don't know for sure that he didn't die in 1327, and we don't know for sure if he did. Would be nice if more historians actually engaged with the arguments and evidence rather than just waving them off as 'implausible' and 'unconvincing'.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-9276594837369208962016-05-23T11:34:12.502+01:002016-05-23T11:34:12.502+01:00We do not know for sure that Edward II survived. T...We do not know for sure that Edward II survived. This view should be respected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-32533494834536591432016-05-23T11:33:37.660+01:002016-05-23T11:33:37.660+01:00We do not know for sure that Edward II survived. T...We do not know for sure that Edward II survived. This view should be respected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-79041099165622446222014-11-18T12:59:18.069+00:002014-11-18T12:59:18.069+00:00And as I point out here and in my English Historic...And as I point out here and in my English Historical Review article, there were at the very least many dozens, and probably far more than that, men who were acting on their belief that Edward was still alive, and risking a great deal - execution, imprisonment, exile, seizure of lands and goods. Awful lot of men risking an awful lot for a delusion.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-11716300441991542282014-11-18T12:57:31.595+00:002014-11-18T12:57:31.595+00:00We don't know that Kent was necessarily 'c...We don't know that Kent was necessarily 'conspiring' against his nephew Edward II - it's not directly stated anywhere that he was trying to restore his brother to the throne, only that he wanted to free him from captivity. After the liberation of the former king was achieved, Kent's confession states that Edward of Caernarfon 'would have been taken wherever would have been appointed'. Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-38840959132188983642014-11-18T00:24:20.871+00:002014-11-18T00:24:20.871+00:00It seems to me that, Despite Ian Mortimer making a...It seems to me that, Despite Ian Mortimer making a point of ridiculing the idea of a death sentence being handed downto the Earl of Kent for the attempt to free a dead man, the idea is not "ridiculous" as he suggests, and this death sentence is not evidence that Edward II was still alive. The fact of the matter is, whether Edward II was alive or not, The Earl of Kent conspired against the current king and that is treason and certainly would have been dealt with harshly. <br /><br />Perhaps Edward was alive. Perhaps he was dead, but Kent didn't want to believe it. How many people still think Elvis did not die as history says he did?<br /><br />The Earl of Kent was guilty of treasonous activity, whether Edward was alive or not. It was the act of conspiring to overthrow the current king, not the act of trying to free a dead man that got him executed. It's a fine distinction, but I think a meaningful one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-17379163729333933412013-09-26T06:48:39.766+01:002013-09-26T06:48:39.766+01:00A truly fascinating topic!
But am i right in thi...<br /> A truly fascinating topic!<br /><br /> But am i right in thinking there are two references to William le Waleys in the 1338 wardrobe accounts?<br /><br /> Firstly that he met with Edward 3 at Koblenz, where his Lombard guardian was reimbursed his travelling expenses.<br /><br /> And later, that Le Waleys spent some weeks in Antwerp, where Phillipa and some of the kids were staying, where there was another cash disbursement to the Lombard? If so, that implies that Le Waleys spent weeks intermittently in Edward 3's company. Isn't it virtually impossible to think an impostor could pull that off? Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-48334248328119026092013-09-02T13:55:22.495+01:002013-09-02T13:55:22.495+01:00For me the fact that a guy claiming to be kings fa...For me the fact that a guy claiming to be kings father apperas just like that, gets to meet the king, king gives him money and that guy keeps his head is a quite a proof that something is going on. I mean, Edward III was not a man to horse around with his royal title or his family roots. Sami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-56761073342375144012013-08-28T15:24:14.231+01:002013-08-28T15:24:14.231+01:00Thanks, Anerje!Thanks, Anerje!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-14845454330832823842013-08-28T15:23:05.263+01:002013-08-28T15:23:05.263+01:00I love this area of your research! I frequently ...I love this area of your research! I frequently re-read all your articles and Ian Mortimer's articles. It's the behaviour of the Italian bankers and Edward III that clinches it for me. Looking forward to more on this fascinating mystery!Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-73957882463955830732013-08-28T13:37:10.162+01:002013-08-28T13:37:10.162+01:00Hehehe, no problem, Sami! :-D
Esther, I was also ...Hehehe, no problem, Sami! :-D<br /><br />Esther, I was also amazed and disappointed that Professor Phillips doesn't mention the Melton Letter at all. Surely he must know about it!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-45886655216604681262013-08-28T13:31:47.034+01:002013-08-28T13:31:47.034+01:00Looking forward to reading more of your work about...Looking forward to reading more of your work about this! I find it interesting that Seymour Phillips discusses the de Freschi (sp?) letter to show how it doesn't necessarily show that Edward survived, but doesn't mention anything about Melton's letter.<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-78485018813856429182013-08-28T09:39:06.928+01:002013-08-28T09:39:06.928+01:00Ok, thanks for correction K. I should have known t...Ok, thanks for correction K. I should have known to ask this from you, The Expert :-DSami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-79603216655609626642013-08-28T06:44:42.895+01:002013-08-28T06:44:42.895+01:00I really want to do another post sometime on peopl...I really want to do another post sometime on people maligned in histfict ;) Thank you for enjoying the blog! <br /><br />Sami, actually Edward III never held the title of prince of Wales - Ian Mortimer argues that it was the one title Edward II never gave up (he made his son duke of Aquitaine and count of Ponthieu in Sept 1325, and Ed III became king of England and lord of Ireland in Jan 1327), and that Ed III only gave his son the title once he knew his father was dead.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-20982147155332019922013-08-27T23:40:53.789+01:002013-08-27T23:40:53.789+01:00One thing which is very important about Edward II ...One thing which is very important about Edward II and his death is the royal title of Prince of Wales. <br /><br />Now, as we know, it is the title given and carried by the crown prince and nobody else. Edward III carried that title untill 1341 and did not name his son and heir a Prince of Wales untill that date. Now why would this man, to whom kingship and all that goes with it were very important, carry the title of an heir himself this far and only then give the title to his son? <br /><br />There is only one obvious reason: he knew that the king, his father, was still alive and did not want to change the titles untill he was dead and he became truly the king and his son the prince. <br /><br />Also, it was around this time when Edward III adopted a new royal motto: It is as it is. This has puzzled historian for ages, what is the meaning of it, but I think Ian Mortimer is on the right tracks here. I think it was Edward III's way to declare to the world what he could not openly say: he is now the king for real.Sami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-64592958878866115872013-08-27T20:36:53.643+01:002013-08-27T20:36:53.643+01:00I was about to read some of what you have already ...I was about to read some of what you have already written about the Melton letter when I got sidetracked by People Maligned in Historical Fiction .... it is really hilarious.<br /><br />I've got Medieval Intrigue on order and I'll have a look at the EHR Haines article later this week. <br /><br />I'm reading my way through your blogs & thoroughly enjoying them as well as finding them really entertaining and informative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-44915661582502870082013-08-27T18:37:43.956+01:002013-08-27T18:37:43.956+01:00Thanks so much, Beata! I really appreciate your s...Thanks so much, Beata! I really appreciate your support, and I'm so glad that we've got to know each other recently ;)<br /><br />I've written a bit on the Melton Letter already but will cover it in more detail soon: http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2012/01/william-meltons-letter.html I recommend Ian Mortimer's 2010 book Medieval Intrigue: Decoding Royal Conspiracies, which includes a full English translation of the letter; or Roy Martin Haines edited it for the English Historical Review in 2009, in the French original.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-11746507357232249662013-08-27T18:30:46.882+01:002013-08-27T18:30:46.882+01:00This is just fascinating. I'm looking forward...This is just fascinating. I'm looking forward to the future blogs.<br /><br />If all this was in a work of fiction it would be dismissed as too far-fetched!<br /><br />I haven't read the Melton Letter in full and am about to track it down (I read French and Latin so the language won't be tooooo problematic).<br /><br />Roll on next blog.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com