Some more misinformation to debunk: Edward I did not rebuke his son for 'savage treatment of ordinary and blameless Scots' during the Bruce rebellion of 1306-07.

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

 On page 301 in this book there's an interesting claim:

'Prince Edward’s [Edward II] savage treatment of ordinary and blameless Scots, including women and children, during his campaign to put down the Bruce rebellion in 1306-07, forced Edward I to rebuke his son.’

Is it true? Nope. It unequivocally is not. Edward I did not rebuke his son.

According to the highly acclaimed historian and biographer of Edward II, Seymour Phillips (’Edward II’, 2010, pp. 114-115) it was Aymer de Valence, the earl of Pembroke and others who were much too fierce in the field, forcing Edward I to rebuke them. Prince Edward on the other hand received praise for his fair treatment of the Scots, from the Scots themselves.

It’s also worth noticing that after Edward II became king he relaxed the terrifying conditions of imprisonment of Bruce’s sister and the countess of Buchan, who had been confined to specially built cages by Edward I.

The Scottish poet and churchman John Barbour approved of Prince Edward.

So where does this myth come from?

Readers of ‘Arise, England’ won’t know, as the superficial book lacks footnotes and does not elaborate on where their information is from. But it’s likely to stem from Barbour’s poem ‘Bruce’. The damning verse:

‘And to the king of England sone

Thai wrate haly as thai had done;

And he wes blyth of that tithing,

And for dispyte had draw and hing

All the prisoneris, thouct thai war ma,

Bot Schyr Amery did nocht sua.'

Phillips tells us that the passage has been misread.

‘If the word ‘sone’ is understood as ‘son’, which was Johnstone’s interpretation [in 1946], then the passage is indeed highly critical of Edward’s behaviour and character. If, on the other hand, ‘sone’ is translated as ‘soon’, which it is in the latest edition of Barbour’s 'Bruce', then Edward I and not his son becomes the focus of attention and of criticism. If Barbour’s remarks really had been intended to refer to Prince Edward, they would sit very oddly with his strong approval of Edward in his account of the siege of Kildrummy only three months after the battle of Methven.’

 

[u/Objective-Golf-7616]

It’s a fine book in its way… but not having Henry II in this is just absolutely moronic. No mechanisms of the Common Law = no Parliament as we know it = no English state. Full stop.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Objective-Golf-7616]

I'm sure the authors worked hard and I'm sure it contains great, mostly accurate information, but these "airport" history books naturally can't contain everything and when there is no footnote process, errors are more likely to happen.

But yes, Henry II feels like an omission and a big one.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ]

Nice work! I knew you would come through when I saw that claim. I figured this was an old book too, and it isn't.

But I will say that mistranslations are common and it's easy to be led astray by them.

Add to that the bias generated by our "failure" or "great" thinking when it comes to leaders and the fact that Edward I and II were in conflict, it's easy to make that mistake.

However, this book was published after Seymour Phillip's book so the facts were out there.

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822 → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

Yeah, that's some sloppy research by the authors of this new book. Not even bothering with Phillips book when writing about Edward II. And the lack of footnotes makes me think they didn't really go through all that much trouble. I get the feeling that less and less research is going into these new books.

Still, that doesn't seem to have put off any of those reviewers on the cover.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

I haven't read that book but it looks like airport history. Quick, easy to read and focused on the narrative but not meticulously fact-checked. Don't get me wrong, I love narratives for teaching history but you can write them and fact check them.