u/HoneybeeXYZ

I don't know any of the history of these two images or the veracity of the claim that they are contemporary images of Edward II and Isabella, made to commemorate a visit to the church.

The original sources is this rather bananas blog post that has errors and has some colorful assessments of Edward II. The writer seems to confuse interest in Edward's reign in the wider blogosphere (that's us!) with denying he was a failed king.

Anyway, does anyone else know if there is anything to the claim that these are contemporary images of Edward II and Isabella?

Edward is sporting the traditional "look like Jesus" look that he was known for, but I do like the bow on top of Isabella's wimple.

The game is simple - match one of our big, giant personalities to one or more of the seven deadly sins:

Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Wrath, Pride, Envy, Sloth

Or three evils?

There was a ten year period between Piers Gaveston's murder and the rise of Hugh Despenser the Younger wherein court gossip wondered who was going to rise to be the new Gaveston. Popular choices included Roger Damory, Hugh Audley, William Montague and the Italian money guy Antonio Pessagno.

The smart money was on the two rising knights, Roger Damory and Hugh Audley, both of whom Edward II married to his nieces Elizabeth and Margaret, both of whom were in line to a portion of the massive De Clare fortune.

Yet, quoting Seymour Phillips (from a book I don't have access to) Frances Underhill says Phillips calls Damory "malignant" "irresponsible" and "dangerous." Elizabeth resisted marrying him to the degree where she may have eloped against Edward's wishes with her second husband and after he died, she continued to resist, until she relented.

And a comment from our sub u/AnantaPurima, points out that Damory and Audley took their grievances out on the tenets during their rebellion, something Hugh the Younger never did.

And remember, none of Edward's barons or their wives or Edward's queen didn't covet lands and power. Most or all of them appear to have had a vindictive streak.

Hugh was brutal. Hugh was greedy. Hugh manipulated and controlled Edward II, with the help of his wife and his father.

Hugh also was bad at reading the room, terrible at compromise and good at getting everyone to turn against him.

But would Damory have done the same or worse, if it was Elizabeth and himself in the positions that Hugh the Younger and Eleanor found themselves?

Would it have been worse for the tenets if Damory or Audley had found favor?

Further Reading:

Phillips, J.R.S, Aymer de Valence: Earl of Pembroke 1307-1324. Baronial Politics in the Reign of Edward II, Oxford University Press, 1972. (This is the one I don't have)

Phillips, J. R. S.Edward II. Yale University Press, 2011. 

Underhill, Frances A. For Her Good Estate: The Life of Elizabeth de Burgh, Lady of Clare. St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 

Everyone who knows anything about the fourteenth century knows Hugh Despenser the Younger was the worst. I've been reading Frances Underhill's biography of Elizabeth de Clare and it's probably the clearest and best account of Hugh's brutal crimes I've read.

And yet....

1. His avarice left England's coffers filled, to the point that even Mortimer & Isabella's avarice didn't leave Edward III broke when he finally took the reins.

2. His children all seemed to turn out fine, and Huchon, his oldest son, was so liked that John Felton and his garrison refused to give the young man up for execution.

3. In an era when greed and corruption was normalized, he was the best at it.

4. Somebody with an iron fist had to run the country when the king was busy thatching roofs, swimming and digging ditches.

5. He really seemed to enjoy being evil, even with some wit at times.

It’s hard to believe that Diana would have been 65 today. A day like this always brings up so many emotions, not just because of the incredible legacy she left behind, but because of the remarkable person she was.

Diana was never perfect, and she never pretended to be. In an institution that often expected its members to appear almost untouchable, she remained beautifully, unapologetically human. That humanity is what made millions of people around the world fall in love with her. She showed us that kindness, empathy, and vulnerability were not weaknesses, they were strengths.

She used her platform in ways that changed lives. Whether she was helping break the stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS by simply holding a patient’s hand, walking through active minefields to support the campaign against landmines, comforting sick children in hospitals, embracing those society often overlooked, or speaking openly about her own struggles with bulimia, depression, and the immense pressures she faced, Diana was years ahead of her time. She made people feel seen, valued, and understood. Even today, her compassion continues to inspire generations.

Her life was filled with extraordinary highs, but also unimaginable heartbreak. She endured public scrutiny, loneliness, and personal pain that no one should have to experience under such an intense spotlight. Yet she never stopped caring for others. Time and time again, she chose compassion over bitterness.

Above all else, she loved William and Harry with every part of her heart. She wanted them to experience as much of the real world as possible and to grow up understanding the lives of ordinary people. No matter what has happened over the years or where life has taken them, they were two young boys who lost their mother far too soon. My heart always goes out to them on this day. Birthdays often carry a different kind of grief, one filled with thoughts of what could have been and the milestones that should have been celebrated together.

I also want to mention The Crown. I know it’s a series that sparks a wide range of opinions, and I completely understand why. But for me, it became the beginning of a much deeper journey. It introduced me to Diana, not simply as a global icon, but as a person. It inspired me to read biographies, watch documentaries, and learn about the real history beyond the dramatization. Emma Corrin beautifully captured Diana’s youthful innocence and vulnerability, while Elizabeth Debicki delivered what is, in my opinion, one of the most moving and authentic portrayals of Diana ever put on screen. Their performances helped introduce a new generation to her story, encouraging many of us to discover the remarkable woman behind the headlines.

Nearly three decades after her passing, Diana’s influence has never faded. Her kindness still echoes through the countless lives she touched, her humanitarian work continues to be remembered, and her legacy remains one of compassion, courage, and love. She wasn’t remembered because she was a princess, she was remembered because she made people feel like they mattered.

So today, on what would have been your 65th birthday, I simply want to say:

Happy 65th Birthday, Diana.

Thank you for showing the world that compassion can change lives. Thank you for your courage, your warmth, your empathy, and your willingness to be vulnerable when so many expected perfection. You will always be remembered, always be admired, and always be deeply missed.

“Anywhere I see suffering, that is where I want to be, doing what I can.”

Happy Birthday, People’s Princess. ❤️🪽

If you love Princess Diana and want to celebrate her, join PrincessDianaForever: \[https://www.reddit.com/r/PrincessDianaForever/s/GnzxIUj578\](https://www.reddit.com/r/PrincessDianaForever/s/GnzxIUj578)

It’s not known where exactly in Westminster Abbey Anne is buried, but the Richard III Society had this marker placed there to remember. Anne. As you can see, it’s a bit worn and probably needs some restoration.

My favourite consort! 🇵🇹

Building off yesterday's assertions that Isabella did not hate Edward II, which is mostly true, it's also fair to point out the couple did have some serious conflict. Yes, that's a major understatement.

Even though Isabella made a show of being a pious wife, concerned for her husband's well being, she also was openly defying him. That was a huge religious and social violation of the time. They took the "obedient wife" thing very seriously in the fourteenth century.

She gave the famous speech about how someone had come between her and her husband. Maybe it was Eleanor or maybe it was Hugh. She doesn't name the person, but she's mighty angry about it. She also donned widow's garments, which was political theatre at its finest, and started conspiring with Mortimer.

Meanwhile, he wrote her some very curt letters, devoid of the usual affectionate language he used, when she refused to return from France. He even addresses her simply as "Lady" - which only he could have done given her royal status.

He did not take being forced to abdicate well, pacing and railing against the forces that had done this to him, and that included Isabella. Yet, he was also outraged at any implication he wished harm on Isabella or Edward III.

His authorship, while in captivity, of "The Lament of Edward II" is disputed, but whoever did write it had access to information that was not publicly available so was probably close to the situation. And in the poem, Edward is furious with Isabella and calls her a traitor.

And whether or not you think the Fieschi letter is a real account of Edward II's escape or a blackmail attempt and fraud, the author of it also knew details that were not public. And in that letter, Edward II was still angry at Isabella.

Back when Edward II was still in captivity, the pope tried to play marriage counselor, but it did not work. Remember, as a pious Christian wife, she would have been expected to return to him even if he was no longer king. Her feelings seem to have been mixed. She wrote him letters, sent him gifts and did try to visit him but was refused permission by the privy council. On other occasions, she refused to go see him and said she feared him.

After his funeral, and in the years that followed, Isabella's feelings seemed to have cooled off and she did make a show of honoring his memory.

So, like a lot of couples who break up, emotions ran high, feelings were hurt and things changed over time. So it's probably more fair to say she didn't hate him most of the time, but there were moments where she absolutely did hate him. And vice a versa.

Sources:

Phillips, J. R. S. Edward II. Yale University Press, 2011. 

Spinks, Stephen. Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance. Amberley Publishing, 2018. 

Warner, K. (2016). Isabella of France: The rebel queen. Amberley. 

Image: Stock Image of a Broken Heart

This is a repost to fix the typo in the headline.

[effacé]

There are many examples of kings hating their queens. Which queens hated their kings?

Even the chroniclers and historians who despise Edward II admit that he loved his children and wanted the best for them. This included his young daughters, Eleanor and Joan, whom he planned to make Spanish queens.

Edward was so often caught up in the morass that was Scotland and France, it's easy to forget that he was half-Spanish through his mother - the only other half Spanish English monarch other than Mary I.

Anyway, the best way a Medieval monarch could provide for his daughter was to make her a queen. However, when Edward fell, his little daughters went from being the daughters of a king to the sisters of a king and the daughters of a disgraced former king. While still royal, their status had changed in a world where status meant everything.

Edward betrothed Eleanor to Alfonso XI of Castile, but after his downfall, she was married off at fourteen to Count Reinald II of Gelderland. They had two sons, though it wasn't a particularly happy marriage and legends swirl of marital conflict. Also, the two sons engaged in a bitter feud/civil war and neither produced a son, so the kingdom eventually went to a different relative. After she was widowed, Eleanor apparently lived in poverty and was too proud to ask her brother, Edward III, for help. She predeceased her mother Isabella, dying at 36.

And to be completely fair, Alfonso of XI was a crap husband to his eventual wife, Maria, and that couple produced a son known as Pedro the Cruel. So Eleanor may not have been better much off, but there was still more wealth and prestige there than in Gelderland.

Edward II planned to marry his little daughter Joan of the Tower to Pedro of Aragon, who was not a crap husband and ruled over a splendid kingdom. Instead, Joan married David of Scotland, son of her father's enemy Robert the Bruce. The pair were married as children, but as they grew up, they developed an aversion to one another. He had a mistress that he flaunted, and she clearly preferred being in England to Scotland. Worse, his reign was such a spectacular failure that he makes her father look like a political and military genius.

They spent some time exiled with her French relatives, before her brother captured him and clapped him in the Tower. She eventually went to live with her mother, with whom she was very close. She never had any children with David and died shortly after her mother.

Isabella of France could not have wanted this for her daughters, and one wonders if she ever felt any guilt as she watched both their lives implode. It speaks to the theory that she never wanted to depose her husband but things just got out of hand, because she knew how things worked and what their father's deposition would mean for her girls.

Sources:

Kathryn Warner's blog.

Phillips, J. R. S. Edward II. Yale University Press, 2011. 

Image: Joan and David go to France, from Froissart.

I bet Edward II had more impressive chairs. I can just hear Piers mumbling about this one and offering to sit on it instead.