u/Appropriate-Calm4822

On a cold January morning in 1329 Roger Mortimer, Isabella and Edward III are making preparations to face the forces of Henry, the Earl of Lancaster's forces head on. In late 1328 Lancaster, supported by Edmund, the Earl of Kent and his brother Thomas, the Earl of Norfolk had demanded the removal of Roger Mortimer from court. The hostilities escalated and Mortimer declared war on Lancaster, resulting in what is known as Henry of Lancaster's Revolt of 1328-29.

The forces were not far from each other near Bedford.

Lancaster held a council with his fellow lords. He declared that they had no choice: a fight against the king was now necessary. This was not what had initially been agreed, the fight was supposed to be against Roger Mortimer with his destruction being the only goal. This change in circumstances made Kent and Norfolk recoil, and they denounced Lancaster then and there, refusing to take up arms against their king. They left, abandoning the earl to the mercy of Mortimer.

Roger Mortimer heard about the desertion as he was in Northampton. He ordered his troops for an immediate night attack. Even Isabella took part, dressed in armour and mounted on a war horse. Through the night he led them, for twenty-four miles, arriving within sight of Lancaster's camp near Bedford at daybreak. Henry made no attempt to defend himself. He came out of his pavilion and walked slowly forward through the cold January morning, and knelt down, alone, in the mud. He waited there until Roger, Isabella and Edward rode up. They watched him from their horses as he begged for forgiveness.

Source:

Ian Mortimer - 'The Greatest Traitor'

Thoughts on this one?

Some context.

On 14 January 1330 the Archbishop of York, William Melton, wrote a remarkable letter to the mayor of London, Simon Swanland. This letter was written more than two years after the supposed funeral of Edward II in Gloucester.

Melton was a shrewd and intelligent man, as evidenced by the views held of him by his contemporaries. The Lanercost chronicler says 'although he was one of the king’s courtiers, he led a religious and honourable life,' and the Vita Edwardi Secundi says he was 'a courtier faithful in everything committed to him' who remained honourable despite the venality of the royal court where he lived so long.

The letter comes from the archives of the Newdegate family of Arbury Hall near Nuneaton. Its source is explained by the fact that around the year 1400 Sir John Newdegate established his family at the Swanland property in Harefield, Middlesex, having married Joanna, sister and coheiress of William de Swanland. The Newdegate archive has been known for many years, though its exploitation has been hampered by the loss of the manuscript catalogue apart from the index.

Forgotten for nearly six hundred years, extracts of the letter were first published in the journal Notes and Queries in 1911 by J. Harvey Bloom. Bloom didn’t pay much attention to what he had uncovered. Again the letter was left in peace for nearly a century, until Ian Mortimer rediscovered it and wrote about it in his 2006 book ‘Edward III, The Perfect King’.

There is a strong consensus among historians that the letter is genuine.

This post is a summary of Kathryn Warner's longer post in her blog, found here:

Edward II: Ten Commandments For Writing About History And Discussing It Online

It's easy to agree with every single one of these points in my opinion.

1) You shall remember that people who lived hundreds of years ago were complex human beings every bit as complex and human as we are, who had families, and feelings, and human dignity, and that therefore you should write about them with respect, in the same way that you would wish writers to treat the memory of you and your loved ones with respect decades or centuries hence.  You will not laugh or sneer or gloat at their painful deaths and suffering, or claim that they deserved everything they got, or express a wish that they'd suffered even more, or call them vile names.

2) You shall remember that accusing someone of a horrible crime such as murder, rape, child abuse, violent assault or torture is a serious allegation which should not be made without real, actual evidence.  This is no less true merely because the person you are accusing lived 500 or 700 years ago.

3) You shall remember that complaining about your favourite historical person being unfairly maligned by history, while enthusiastically maligning his/her enemies for all you're worth, looks hypocritical.

4) You shall remember that your favourite historical person's enemies were complex, multi-dimensional human beings too and deserve to be acknowledged as such, rather than as cardboard cut-out evil villains devoid of any humanity.

5) Unless you're twelve, you shall remember that there is no need to divide historical people into 'teams' or 'sides' and hurl abuse at the other 'team' or people who like them.

6) If you're discussing history online and make a surprising or implausible statement, such as claiming that it was treason to refuse to have sex with the king of England in the sixteenth century, you shall remember that it is entirely reasonable to be asked for a primary source to back up your statement.

7) You shall remember that modern historical novels, however well-researched, well-written and enjoyable, do not count as primary sources.  Responding to a request to provide a source for a statement you've made about a historical person with "Historical Novelist X depicted him this way" does not actually answer the question.  You should also bear in mind that merely because something has appeared in print in a historical novel does not automatically mean that it has a basis in fact, and you should check before repeating it as though it certainly does.  This is how historical myths get started, and once established, they're damn hard to shake.

8) You shall remember that familial, societal and marital norms of the Middle Ages were different to ours, and refrain from referring to women as "helpless pawns" when their marriages are arranged by their (cruel, heartless, callous, uncaring...) fathers.  You shall remember that having your royal or noble heroine wail "But I don't love him!" when informed of her impending marriage to a king or nobleman is by now a tedious cliché.

You will remember that, contrary to what you might assume, depicting Isabella of France as being willing to take a lover at the age of sixteen and foist a child of non-royal blood onto the English throne is an insult to her, not a compliment.

9) You shall remember that depicting women as all of a sudden no longer possessing their own agency, becoming the proverbial "helpless pawns" and coming under the total control of nasty unscrupulous men whenever they do things you don't approve of, when two pages earlier you were applauding their independence of action and thought as they did noble and good things, is as patronising and paternalistic as the 'sexual prejudices' of previous centuries you're decrying.

10) If you wouldn't refer to Roger Mortimer as Isabella of France's 'straight lover', to Alice Perrers as Edward III's 'female lover', or to John of Gaunt's 'heterosexual relationship' with Katherine Swynford - and of course you wouldn't - then you shall remember that there is no reason to call Piers Gaveston or Hugh Despenser Edward II's 'gay lover' or to talk about their 'homosexual relationship'.  Merely 'lover' and 'relationship' or 'sexual relationship' will suffice; it will be readily apparent to your reader that Edward, Piers and Hugh were all men and that their relationships were therefore evidently same-sex. 

Furthermore, you shall remember that making lame statements such as "It's different when men love women" in an attempt to justify why you think Edward's (presumed) adultery with men is nasty and icky while his grandson John of Gaunt's adultery with Katherine Swynford is fabulously romantic, looks bigoted.

The question I'm posing in this post is: Did Thomas of Lancaster suffer from some disabling disease? If so, what do you think it could have been?

Diagnosing someone with a disease more than 700 years after their death is naturally a rather foolish undertaking by default, but we can speculate.

After the disaster at Bannockburn, Thomas was the de facto ruler of England for some years. Yet he failed to rule properly, instead largely staying cooped up at his castle of Pontefract. He avoided travelling and was remarkably passive. Inevitably, his subordinates and the other magnates tired of his inefficient leadership and Hugh Despenser the Younger filled the power vacuum. He wasn't exactly the people's choice either, and Thomas soon found himself leading another rebellion in 1321. This time, he was defeated in the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322 and paid for his intransigence with his life.

So why did he behave like that? A power-hungry earl who refused to rule when he was given the chance? The logical explanation to this conundrum could be that he didn't seize his chance because he couldn't, not because he didn't want to.

We don't have much to go by here, but there are a few records that can act as his medical journal.

In 1305, back in the good days when Thomas and Edward of Caernarvon were still friends, during the reign of Edward I Thomas was unable to come to stay with Edward. Edward wrote to him, genuinely wishing him a speedy recovery.

"Very dear cousin, we hold you well excused that you have not come to us, and your illness grieves us much, and if we can come to you we will do it willingly, to see and to comfort you."

20 November 1311: Edward II is “glad” to hear Thomas health has improved, expresses hopes to see him and Sir Robert Holland at parliament. The letter is addressed to Sir Robert.

"We are very joyous and pleased about the good news we have heard concerning the improvement in our dear cousin and faithful subject Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and that he will soon be able to ride in comfort. And we send you word and dearly pray that, as soon as he is comfortable and able to ride without hurt to his body, you should ask him to be so good as to hasten to us at our parliament."

July 1317: Thomas writes Edward that he’s not in any state to travel and can not attend a council meeting.

January 1321: Edward pardons Thomas’ absence, as he had ‘not yet sufficiently recovered from his illness to travel’.

The poor chap may have been in chronic pain. That would go some way in explaining his grumpy attitude and inability to get along with people.

Your thoughts?

I came across a rather balanced post on facebook of all places, written by the author David Pilling. I think it merits crossposting here. It was written yesterday.

#OTD in 1284 Edward II was born at Caernarfon.

Modern fiction has painted Edward as a coward, an abusive husband and a terrible king. In Outlaw King (2018) he is portrayed as a noisy buffoon with a tragic haircut.

The real Edward was only one of these things — sadly, it was the one that really counted. Even if you strain every point in his favour, it is very difficult to make a case for Edward’s kingship.

It is not that he lacked ability. Caroline Burt, in her recent study of the governance of the first two Edwards, has shown that Edward II could be a very effective ruler when he chose to be. However, he only made the effort when his favourites were threatened. Otherwise, he was largely disengaged from his own administration — more so, Burt argues, than any other medieval ruler of England. That made for a stark contrast with his father, a notorious micro-manager.

It is true Edward inherited a difficult situation in 1307, including heavy debts and an unfinished war in Scotland. The debts had no obvious practical effect on England’s ability to raise armies and wage war. Some historians have sought to qualify Edward’s responsibility for Bannockburn, noting the difficult circumstances he faced.

Even if you accept that, he cannot be absolved from abandoning his allies in Scotland, refusing to consider a face-saving peace deal, and continuing to throw men and money down a very deep hole. By the end of the reign, he had lost control of the northern counties and was effectively facilitating the payment of ransoms demanded by Robert Bruce’s forces from English towns and cities.

The story that the infant Edward was presented to the Welsh as a prince who spoke no English is a later myth. In reality he was created Prince of Wales in 1301. There was no investiture ceremony, and he seems to have been granted the title so he could lead Welsh troops into Scotland. While he had some loyal supporters among the Welsh gentry, others were bitterly opposed and played a role in his downfall.

In one respect Edward succeeded brilliantly: after 1315 he rapidly became very rich, and by 1323 his finances had skyrocketed. This was largely due to the confiscation of the estates of English rebels. After 1323, Edward and his new favourites, the Despensers, embarked upon a large-scale campaign of extortion, kidnapping and blackmail, termed a ‘reign of terror’ by Natalie Fryde.

After several years of this, large sections of the political nation declined to resist the invasion of his estranged queen, Isabella of France, and her ally Roger Mortimer. Edward was deposed and probably murdered* at Berkeley Castle, although the notorious hot poker story is almost certainly untrue. Death by smothering (to leave no marks) is more likely. There is also a tradition—impossible to verify or deny—that Edward escaped custody and lived as a hermit in Italy.**

Attached is a poster for Derek Jarman’s play about Edward II.

—

*This is what I disagree on personally, but otherwise I think it’s a very fair take, and his tone is reasonable and respectful throughout.
**Very good of him to mention this possibility, most detractors usually give it the silent treatment. But it’s not impossible to verify, while his death in 1327 can not be proven. In fact, the evidence speaks against his death at Berkeley Castle.

I came across a nice blog post (link here and below) written by Gemma Hollman only a few days ago, which ties in neatly with the analytical post about Queen Isabella posted in this sub a couple of days ago.

A short excerpt from the blog:

'When the queen of England, Isabella of France, approached the Count and Countess [of Hainault] for a marriage alliance between her son Edward and their daughter Philippa, they leapt at the chance to know their daughter would one day become a queen.

The couple were teenagers, and the first few years of their marriage were hardly auspicious. Isabella of France had overthrown her husband, Edward II, and had her son made Edward III in his place. But though Philippa had thus become a queen far earlier than anticipated, she and her husband were kept under Isabella’s thumb. She did not want to give up her position at the top of the ladder. This was where Philippa would first discover the power of pregnancy for a queen.

Philippa fell pregnant around aged 15, and this was to change the course of her and her husband’s lives. Firstly, Philippa had never had a coronation, Isabella not wanting to have a rival as a consecrated consort. But now that Philippa would be giving birth to the new heir to the throne, it was unthinkable that she would remain uncrowned to do so.'

Hollman's take reinforces the point made that Isabella would not have planned to depose her husband. Isabella had wanted her life and position back and was unwilling to take the back seat. SHE was meant to be the queen, that had been HER role and destiny.

Hollman falls into the usual trap of referring to Roger Mortimer as Isabella's lover (do we really know this?), but the post is a good read all the same.

See Gemma Hollman's full post here:

14th century – History… the interesting bits!

Images:

Philippa of Hainault's coronation, 15th-century illustration from Froissart's Chronicles

Gemma Hollman's book 'The Queen and the Mistress - The Women of Edward III'

I just realized that user flairs had been somehow deactivated for members of the sub - sorry about that! No idea how it could have happened.

Now the flairs should be active again, so feel free to choose one that fits your preference. Let us mods know if you face any issues :)

There are a lot of novels set in Edward's reign, many more than the ones I've found here. So the question is more general, not only applying to the books in the images. Any good ones out there that really caught your attention? Any less than stellar works that you wish you hadn't read?

Some nice brief reflections on three 70's book covers by Kathryn Warner (from her blog, more here):

Hilda Lewis - 'Harlot Queen' (1970) - Isn't there a rule like 'thou shalt remove thy armour before thou suckest a woman's nipples'? Presumably she's kicking her leg out as an unavoidable bodily reaction to the feel of the armour, and isn't opening her mouth out of passion but to screech "Eeeek, that's freezing, you fool!"

Pamela Bennetts - 'The She-Wolf' (1975) - featuring Queen Isabella and three cans of hairspray.

Sandra Wilson - 'Alice' (1976) - Piers is decidedly hetero in this one, as well as a Goddess worshipper, who resolutely refuses to put out for Edward II no matter how much the king begs him. Poor Edward manages to be both "a giant, strong and muscular" and have a "strange womanish air". Yeah, because there are just so many giant, muscular women, you can see how the confusion might arise.

I haven't read any of these three and I don't think I will, but each to their own!