tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post7025314457321705166..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: The Earl of Kent's Plot of 1329/30 RevisitedKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-13368221319817721182014-05-08T12:52:55.606+01:002014-05-08T12:52:55.606+01:00And finally, Kent and Melton's plan, in fact, ...<i>And finally, Kent and Melton's plan, in fact, was to have Edward taken abroad, not restore him to the throne.</i><br /><br />This is certainly fairly conclusive, but it does raise the question of what Kent expected to do next. Having stashed Edward comfortably in Burgundy or some other friendly state, he could hardly expect to go home and put his feet up without getting a visit from the Friends of Roger Mortimer Society. Nor indeed could his fellow plotters, who comprised a significant proportion of the ruling elite. <br /><br />They must had a part 2 in mind, even if it was implicit, and if it didn't involve becoming the powers behind the throne of Edward II, was it perhaps to be the powers behind the throne of Edward III, having disposed of the Mortimer/Isabella faction and relying on the boy's gratitude for doing the right thing by his dear old dad?chris yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07556240635442613879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-67401496301528303972014-05-06T13:22:04.049+01:002014-05-06T13:22:04.049+01:00Let me know at edwardofcaernarfon(at)yahoo(dot)com...Let me know at edwardofcaernarfon(at)yahoo(dot)com if you have any problems accessing the article, and I'll gladly send you a copy via email :-)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-331848562053727262014-05-06T10:50:25.624+01:002014-05-06T10:50:25.624+01:00Thank for the detailed answer, Kathryn.
Looks lik...Thank for the detailed answer, Kathryn. <br />Looks like the two things I need to do are read your EHR article (I have seen the link, and I look forward to reading it!) and apologize to the Earl of Kent for comparing him to the Earl of Warwick (not so easy; there does not seem to be a link for that!). <br /><br />It is fascinating to think what the aftermath of a successful plot would have been like (assuming that Edward was alive in Corfe). I guess that the Earl and his supporters must have had a plan to protect themselves from any reprisals, but there would severe consequences for someone, I would wager.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-3882516637633406452014-05-06T05:33:56.889+01:002014-05-06T05:33:56.889+01:00Hi Henry, thanks for the comment! I go into the ba...Hi Henry, thanks for the comment! I go into the backgrounds of Kent's adherents in detail in my EHR article - briefly, the majority had once been members of Edward's household or of the Despensers. A handful hadn't and may have had other reasons to join the plot, such as Thomas Wake who played an important role in the capture and execution of the Despensers and Edward's deposition. He joined the earl of Lancaster's rebellion in 1328/29 too.<br /><br />Kent was way down the list of heirs to the throne, behind: the impending Black Prince; Edward II's younger son John of Eltham; Edward II's two daughters; Kent's older brother Norfolk; and Norfolk's son Edward. So no, I really doubt that had anything to do with it. The major difference with 1470/71 is that everyone knew Henry VI was still alive. In 1328/30, a lot of these men had attended Edward II's funeral! A major difference with Lambert Simnel is that the latter was very young; Edward II in 1329/30 was in his mid-forties, and although surely he would have rewarded Kent enormously if he'd made him king again, Kent could never have become a 'power behind the throne' in the same way. I don't think there are other parallels in English history to Kent's plot.<br /><br />And finally, Kent and Melton's plan, in fact, was to have Edward taken abroad, not restore him to the throne.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-48942418919488148562014-05-06T05:18:24.575+01:002014-05-06T05:18:24.575+01:00Dear Kathryn,
Thanks for yet another interesting p...Dear Kathryn,<br />Thanks for yet another interesting piece.<br />Can you speculate on the motives of these 70 or more followers, I wonder? You have said that Archbishop Melton is clearly a loyalist with regard to Edward II, but had some of the others either abandoned or not actively supported Edward during the 1326/7? For some, were factors other than loyalty present in the mix, do you think?<br />I hope it is OK to have a second devil’s advocate in this set of comments! I wondered if it might be more a case of “calculating Kent” than “stupid Kent”. Was he aiming to become a power behind the throne? Maybe a parallel could be drawn with Warwick the Kingmaker putting Henry VI back on the throne in 1470/71, or John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln organizing a rebellion on behalf of the pretender, Lambert Simnel in 1487(despite his own potential claim to the throne). Wasn’t the future Black Prince on the way at the time of Kent’s plot? Having his brother (either the real one or a fake version) back on the throne could be beneficial to a royal uncle who would otherwise get bumped down the line of succession one place at a time by each new royal baby. Do you think there is any mileage in such an interpretation? If not, I will have to apologize to the Earl of Kent for casting him in such a cynical light! Best wishes, HenryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-61288050860260348202014-05-04T18:05:57.407+01:002014-05-04T18:05:57.407+01:00Sami, well said - thanks for the insight!
Thanks,...Sami, well said - thanks for the insight!<br /><br />Thanks, Anerje!<br /><br />Thanks, Ian! I was hoping you'd enjoy it :-)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-61105125221528852572014-05-04T15:27:56.767+01:002014-05-04T15:27:56.767+01:00Thoroughly enjoyed this Kathryn. Refreshing. I spe...Thoroughly enjoyed this Kathryn. Refreshing. I spent years having to answer all these superficial arguments (and more) and it became so tedious. To turn it to humour is brilliant. All the best, IanIan Mortimerhttp://www.ianmortimer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-70089139942991407502014-05-03T17:00:20.526+01:002014-05-03T17:00:20.526+01:00I really enjoyed your article about this in EHR. ...I really enjoyed your article about this in EHR. It's such a complex issue and you've argued your points really well. I feel the greatest injustice to Kent was the accusation he was 'stupid'. Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-77847072911556333692014-05-02T20:56:12.300+01:002014-05-02T20:56:12.300+01:00I think there was a pretty good reason why Edward ...I think there was a pretty good reason why Edward was "socially dead" but alive anyways. Isabella particulary had to think about his son. What would he do when he would assume the throne if his father was really killed by the orders of his mother? So it was enough to make the son believe it when he was young so that later on he could not reveal the truth even if he knew it. <br /><br />One thing few historians or people in general understand today is the very old concept of social death. This practise was still in use in Finland in late 1800's. If a young girl became pregnant she dissapeared from her home. The patent story was that "she walked into a lake/pond/rapids" etc. In realoity most of these girls did not commit suicide which was a mortal sin. They were simply wisked away to another side of the land, to big cities with small amount of money. In their home turf they were dead but in their new enviroment they could try to start again. This was the social death, an ancient practise.<br /><br />The main thing from the point of Isabella and Mortimer was that Edward became dead in social sense, he was gone for all the practicalioty. They did not need to kill him for real. That was the main thing and I assume the son knew later on that his father was not really dead, physically, but socially he was. And that was fine with Edward III. <br /><br />Sami Parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-29313408485257397792014-05-02T16:05:18.082+01:002014-05-02T16:05:18.082+01:00True, though I still really can't see so many ...True, though I still really can't see so many men following Kent into treason, exile, forfeiture and so on simply because he told a convincing story. With the stakes as high as they possibly could be, they needed a lot more than that, especially as some or even many of the men who joined him must have attended Edward's funeral. Melton had a different information source, anyway, as he told King's Bench after his arrest.<br /><br />Swanland was a draper, and I know more about him in that capacity than as mayor, as he often supplied cloth to Edward II's household. I strongly suspect that in 1330 he used his influence to protect fellow plotters who came from London, one of whom had himself been a sheriff of the city in 1328.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-10738559114780205762014-05-02T15:54:45.559+01:002014-05-02T15:54:45.559+01:00Great post. To play devil's advocate ... I do...Great post. To play devil's advocate ... I don't think the "Kent was gullible" theory is completely inconsistent with the "Kent was dangerous to Roger and Isabella" theory; it has been said that the best con artists believe their own stories. So, it is possible that Kent was able to persuade so many to join him (making him dangerous to Isabella and co.) precisely because his alleged gullibility made him believe strongly in his claim that Edward II was alive. I do agree, though, that the numbers of followers and the participa- tion of men like Melton indicate that Kent's theory had to have some substance to it. BTW, we know something about Melton's capability; do we know anything about the other activities of Swanland while he was mayor of London?<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com