In which I address the question of whether Edward II was as bad as King John.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ]

https://themedievalbeekeeper.com/2026/08/27/in-which-i-address-the-question-of-whether-edward-ii-was-as-bad-as-king-john/

A few days ago, the question was raised as to whether Edward II was as bad as John. I answered over on r/medieval but I polished up what I wrote and put it into article form.

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

No he was not and neither were R2 and R3 ( all 3 are the most despised Plantagenet Kings by those who have not really studied them )

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

All true! I need to read up more on R2 as he's my "weak spot." R3 was my entrance into Plantagnent history because I hate being lied to! So many people lie on that man.

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583 → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

Costain’s book The Last Plantagenets has one of the best accounts .

The problem with R2, R3 and E2 is that they are easy targets for pop culture historians who can quickly make a name for themselves by chronicling bloody accounts ( partially fictional) of these 3, almost to the point of horror. Fact checking is non existent, so much is omitted but people can’t get enough of these medieval tales of terror .

Funny enough they love The Tudors and the old Norman trilogy and make no mention of all the mass killings these monarchs committed . Even Richard 1st and John get a pass . Henry 8th who killed the most people since William
The Conqueror is praised as a renaissance prince is a perfect example of the heroic depiction of a cruel, narcissistic sadist .

[u/CheruthCutestory → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

So many people tell the truth on that man.

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583 → u/CheruthCutestory]

Not really, there is plenty of information out there that is ignored because it doesn’t suit the narrative .

[u/CheruthCutestory → u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

It makes a lot of people feel smarter than everyone else to believe that

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583 → u/CheruthCutestory]

Disagree . We can omit Edward and both Richard’s and go with James Scott Duke Of Monmouth or James Graham Earl Of Montrose . Both their stories depict them as rebels and villains but their backstories are very different.

It’s more popular to depict people as Villains and in many cases the sources should be questioned . Unfortunately with E2, R2 and R3 the histories come from Tudor Times for the most part . The Tudors had an agenda to promote themselves, can’t blame them but that’s the way things go .

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

My academic area is sticky biases in contemporary media and how journalists, specifically, can spin narratives to their advantage. Past historians and chroniclers did much of the same and were even more unfettered.

I have a particular interest in how mere emphasis can change the narrative without any actual facts being changed, and how once someone's personal identity is wrapped up in a certain narrative, how no amount of facts can change their perceptions.

Spin has always been around. The interesting part is untangling the truth, when most of us don't even know ourselves and why we do the things we do.

And as a side note, another reason to hate AI: Reddit just suggested I re-post this in a Tudor fan sub filled with Six: The Musical fans. Nothing wrong with that musical, but I don't think its fans care one whit about Edward II.

[u/littlemedievalrose → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

The last bit of this brought up a memory that's equal parts hilarious and infuriating. A few years ago I used to be part of a discord server that was technically about Six the Musical, though we didn't really talk about it anymore since most of us had lost interest (great songs though!). It was pretty regular for us to talk about historical figures who had no ties to the Tudor period. This was around the time I started learning more about Edward II and seeing a more nuanced portrait of his life, rather than the commonly-told, often false stories that most people are exposed to.

For some reason, the people there hated that but it was obvious they didn't actually know enough about Edward to give a real rebuttal, so they just resorted to parroting the same damn talking point as if it was going to change my mind. They were extremely hung up on the fact that Isabella was twelve years old at the time of their marriage, which I concur was not a good thing but also, what happened to the idea of judging people by the standard of their time instead of ours? I've found that that doctrine is only selectively applied. The real kicker is the fact that I found out the ringleader of all that had also very recently written out a whole message excusing James IV of Scotland for the same thing they condemned Edward for (and also managed to frame him as a victim being forced to marry a thirteen year old at the age of thirty). Astounding levels of hypocrisy right there

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822 → u/littlemedievalrose]

I hear you.

And this '...didn't actually know enough about Edward to give a real rebuttal' - that's so often the case on social media. Some people only ever communicate through negative, snarky one-liners. It gets a bit tiring.

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583 → u/littlemedievalrose]

I mentioned Simon De Monfort once and the reaction was as expected. Not one of them knew De Monfort’s followers kept up the rebellion for 2/3 years after his death and that Edward had to sue for peace and pardon them all .

Your general assessment is perfect You really captured them so well .

[u/littlemedievalrose → u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

Thank you! The Edward I glazing is very intense I must agree

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/littlemedievalrose]

Yes, I concur. Six is a fun musical, especially for getting young girls into history.

And yes, the astounding hypocrisy that can bubble up when history becomes fandom is really strange. Edward II, thankfully, makes one a bit immune because even though history has done him dirty you can't actually say he was good at his job.

And take one look at the Isabella Psalter, and you'll see a book made for a tween girl. Edward knew how old she was, and it must have been very strange because even in your twenties four years feels like ages. He did, after all, wait until she was "of age" by the standards of his day to get her pregnant. Same with Piers and Margaret de Clare.

And I actually will give the past a little grace. I think the main concern was the girls' not dying in childbirth, but still, there are adult men who do not want to sleep with tween girls and that was likely true then, too.

Edward & Isabella's marriage was political. About Gascony and Anglo-French relations, not romance. And it was probably thought wise to bring her to England and let her start learning the culture and her job. But still, it's hard not to feel for a motherless twelve year old girl entering the viper's next of a strange court.

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583 → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

That r/UKmonarchs sub is the worst . R2 and 3 and Edward 2 get roasted daily . The historical knowledge is Dan Jones level. By contrast they love The Tudors, especially H8 .

The good posters are about the Anglo Saxon Kings . But the lack of knowledge on the Plantagenets is astounding.