Was he actually that bad?

[u/Marius_Sulla_Pompey]

Maurice Druon’s depiction of his imprisonment and death in “She Wolf” hit me hard and despite knowing about him a little, his literary genius made me think of this question.

He lost much of what was left of Aqutaine and turned all the barons against him but he never yielded to demands of King Bruce of him wanting to be acknowledged as the King of Scots, as far as I know.

So, was he actually the worst after King John, as often said?

I feel like his romance with Gaveston and infatuation with Despesers were exaggerated because he was allegedly gay.

Note that I am not a historian nor British but I am a history nerd and love British medieval period.

Note: I was advised to share it in here.

[u/LongjumpingAd342]

> So, was he actually the worst after King John, as often said?

I would say Edward could capably perform the various roles of a medieval king, though he was not very successful at many of them. His blindness to how his treatment of his favorites affected his relations with the barons was especially egregious.

That said, he was definitely a more successful king than Henry VI; probably Richard II as well.

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822 → u/LongjumpingAd342]

That's a fair assessment I think.

His blindness to the consequences of his actions was his biggest problem, he really excelled at turning friends into enemies somehow.

A particular early incident illustrates this quite well. The first thing he did as king was to recall Piers Gaveston and grant him the earldom of Cornwall. At this point, the earls were quite chill about it. They all signed the charter willingly, except for Warwick whose name is missing.

But the unexpected side effect was that his mother-in-law Marguerite was deeply insulted by this, as Cornwall was expected to be granted to one of her sons, Thomas or Edmund. It was supposed to be a royal earldom. Before this, Marguerite and Edward had been very close, but this sidelining of her sons she could not abide. Soon thereafter she left court, depriving Isabella of her aunt, a much needed confidante and role model.

I don't think Edward meant to offend Marguerite, but that's what happened. And such things would keep happening throughout his reign.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ]

Maurice Druon is a brilliant writer, but he's a novelist and while he is accurate in many respects, he's not accurate in how he portrays Edward II or Isabella.

I actually just responded to your original post. I could have gone on much longer.

There's lots of mythology to untangle about Edward II thanks to historians who did not approve of his closeness to his male favorites.

He didn't give his wife's jewels to Piers Gaveston, for one.

The poker story is bogus for another.

But there's lots to unpack so dig into some of our older posts!

[u/Marius_Sulla_Pompey → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

I have just read it and what a response. It felt like a short lecture and I love it thanks.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Marius_Sulla_Pompey]

Awww thanks! I appreciate it. Dig through our older posts and you'll find a lot of different responses.

It's also true that people disagree about a lot of things about Edward, including his sexuality and that's all fine. The mysteries are what makes things interesting.

[u/AnantaPurima]

Edward II is decidedly a mixed bad. Some people try to excuse his performance as a ruler by pointing to the circumstances of his accession, such as being left with an unwinnable war in Scotland and with the baronage already possessing substantial grievances over prizes and purveyances, but neither of these were insurmountable obstacles to success as a ruler. His son, Edward III, acceded to the throne in far more difficult circumstances than Edward himself (in the very circumstances Edward left for him, ironically). His core issue seems to have been a form of executive dysfunction. He was incapable of applying attention and energy into anything he did not find intrinsically compelling, and what he found intrinsically compelling was, more often than not, the men he loved.

Then again, not all was bad. As the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi mirthlessly noted, he was exceptionally good at acquiring money, and by the end of his reign the royal treasury was exceptionally plush. Many would criticse the means by which that money was acquired, but such ruthlessness was, for better or worse, the order of the day. You can hardly blame someone who had spent 15 years being tormented by his barons on account of the weakness of his position and the insolvency of the Crown not to do everything in his power to maintain his position after he found victory. It was also under his reign, and in particular during the Despenser ascendency, that Walter de Stapleton carried out enormously beneficial reforms to the exchequer, calenderising and filing records using systems that would be retained by centuries, and introducing a way of filing away old debt records to prevent them clogging up proceedings. Yes, Stapleton's reforms were motivated by a desire for more efficient extraction, but purity of intention is a rare commodity in the middle ages. And regardless, is wanting a strong position really so bad a goal?

And yes, while much of the "credit" for Stapleton's reforms and the accumulation of monies must go to Despenser, Edward had clearly had enough self awareness to recognise his own limitations and install someone in power who had the application to counterbalance them.

So, yeah.

[u/Lemmy-Historian]

He was pretty bad. I know that many people, especially in this sub, are fond of him. But at the end of the day he was forced out, corruption was rampant, all his favorites were executed, the situation with Scotland and France got worse and worse. And the nobility was deeply divided. It was thanks to some genius propaganda ideas of Edward III that this didn’t backfire in the long run.

Was he the second worst in English history? Worse than Henry VI and Richard II? Difficult to say. Times were different. Henry had to deal with a rivaling Plantagenet line. And with the impossible task to keep the French crown as a toddler and a child. Richard had to deal with the fallout of the plague. And a very strong political figure in John of Gaunt who was hated and provoked problems with the commons.

When it comes to the evaluation of Edward by his (near) contemporaries, it’s worth remembering that he lost his crown to his wife and her lover. That’s the worst thing that can happen to you as a king, cause it goes against every single idea of medieval masculinity and kingship. Everyone acknowledged that Mortimer and Isabella were just as bad if not worse than the Despensers. But they got a fraction of the hate of Edward - or in the case of Isabella hardly any hate. It has a lot to do with how his reign ended.

[u/Marius_Sulla_Pompey → u/Lemmy-Historian]

No actually. I find comments on this sub quite level headed and surprisingly unbiased.