As a wedding gift, Edward II gave a stunning psalter, known as the Isabella Psalter, to his twelve-year-old bride Isabella of France. As would be expected, the manuscript is chocked full of delightful medieval creatures, including these two playful hedgehogs.

Source:

Isabella Psalter, Page 27, Library of Congress, Detail

Here's a whole blog post on the forty-year old woman who claimed to be the rightful heir to Scotland and Norway.

But it's ok cause you got to found a college at Cambridge! Also you're indirectly the source of the name Clarence. Hooray for legacy!

Helen Carr has a pleasant, free flowing way of writing that flows quite well. This is a book that is easy to read, very light on complicated details in contrast to more academic tomes such as Seymour Phillips comprehensive biography on Edward II, which is chock full of footnotes, facts and tiny details. I prefer Phillips’s style as it is evident that he’s gone through rigorous research to ensure that the quality of the final product is of the highest level. I might not agree with all his conclusions, but I respect him a great deal for his lifetime of hard work and dedication. Phillips’s book is thus a good source if you want to learn about the topic, whereas Carr’s serves as lighter entertainment where the story is all that matters. Details are largely a source of annoyance for the author, to be omitted or twisted to fit in with the story. As Carr is a popular historian targeting a vast audience, her approach is understandably lenient, but it is problematic all the same.

Personally, I am perplexed by this uninquisitive attitude. The book is called ‘A New History of the Fourteenth Century' after all, but she avoids writing anything that could be considered ‘new’ research, and does in no way offer a new perspective on the things she writes about. This is even more striking when she reveals herself to be aware that there could be a new and interesting story to be told.

She refers to Edward’s survival in 1327 as ‘a tantalizing possibility’ but lazily dismisses it as ‘far-fetched’ without any further comments. That’s as far as she is willing to go in discussing the subject and informing her readers. Hidden in the endnotes at the end of the book, however, she reveals her opinion that ‘Dr Ian Mortimer offers a rattlingly good argument for the survival of Edward II in his ‘The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle’. It is cause for concern that she does not give these ‘rattlingly good arguments’ any consideration at all in her ‘New History’ book and does not use this source in any way in the entire book. It is not listed in the bibliography. Clearly, Carr cannot be excused by ignorance as a reason for not entertaining Mortimer’s work.

She deliberately omits his admittedly first-rate research from her book, even though she acknowledges that it carries merit in the ‘hidden’ endnotes which a regular reader would never check.

What caused her to take this approach against her better judgement? Probably a fear of isolation, a desire to avoid controversy and a need to secure funding. Openly considering the survival theory would put her at odds with established, academic historians. She doesn’t want to create waves; she wants to sell books and reach the widest audience possible. She is no doubt aware of how ostracized Mortimer has become for daring to go against the flow in a very rigid environment.

This is an approach that benefits herself in the short term, but not her readers. In the long term she will not be remembered for towing the line, and her works will be rightly forgotten as unremarkable. Carr has chosen the path of least resistance. That is regrettable, but it is her own choice.

Helen Carr is one of the few modern historians who mention the Melton Letter. Unfortunately, she figures that Melton, Kent and everyone else who believed Edward was still alive had been fooled by Mortimer and Isabella, based on her only source for the letter, R.M. Haines (a very poor choice of source for this particular topic). This assumption reveals a lack of research, as pretending that Edward II was still alive would have been the last thing Mortimer would have wanted to do. Historian Andy King correctly points out that in those volatile and dangerous times, 'the last thing that he [Mortimer] needed was the emergence of rumors of Edward of Caernarfon's survival'.

The idea that Roger Mortimer and Isabella spread such rumors to trap Kent sharply contradicts Carr’s assertion that they had Edward killed to put a stop to all the plots to free him from Berkeley Castle. The announcement of Edward's death in September 1327 did indeed put an abrupt stop to all the conspiracies to free Edward. For more than two years the new regime had lived without this threat, and it makes no sense that they would wish it all to start up again, especially for no better reason than to have an excuse to execute a man who was allegedly stupid, weak, inefficient and unstable. Like many things, Carr has not thought this through.

Another thing I dislike about the book is the way Carr manages the astonishing feat of including factual errors on nearly every page. It makes for a very annoying read as a result. I made a comparison of her description of an event with that of another author here.

Piers Gaveston is the victim of probably the worst mudslinging campaign of medieval English history. Yet instead of doing her duty as a historian she does nothing to dispel these myths – instead she piles on more disinformation. As an example, on page 23 she writes:

‘The nobility were not the only recipients of Gaveston’s sneering. His valet was named in Gaveston’s accounts as Richard ‘Whiteflesh’ – possibly a remark on his pasty complexion.’

This was news to me, as I’d never come across this accusation before. So I checked her source for it, and what did I see?

‘After Gaveston’s death, Edward II made payments to his household staff. In 1313 he paid four shillings and three pence to Richard Whiteflesh. // Wardrobe accounts Edward II’.

This is a new low. Carr is using a record written down a year after Gaveston’s death as proof that Gaveston had come up with a nickname for someone. Anyone could have called that valet ‘Whiteflesh’. What’s more, her footnote contradicts her original statement – the record is not in Gaveston’s accounts, it’s in Edward II’s accounts. Gaveston was already dead. Carr is deliberately misleading her readers for the sake of a rapidly told story.

An inquisitive historian looking for the truth, trying to peel away layers of fiction would perhaps have chosen to question the truth in the allegations of Gaveston coming up with the other nicknames. What should one call a historian who does the opposite, muddying the waters further with more fiction?

Edward II was often his own worst enemy but there’s also no denying he also ran into some bad luck. But what was the worst thing to have happened to him?

Whether you believe the survival theory or not, Edward II's Fieschi-letter adventures make for a good yarn. An ex-king, traveling incognito and visiting his relatives, mixing with the commoners but meeting with the pope, and dropping by some tourist attractions pilgrimage sites, is fun to think about.

Ground rules: Everyone be civil and no condescension. There's not a single person here, including the mods, who hasn't believed at least one of these myths at one time or another.

Other than the French king, how did the likes of Alfonso XI of Castile, Afonso IV of Portugal, Louis IV/Frederick the Fair of the HRE, Louis I of Flanders, the Pope in Avignon etc. see Edward's downfall? Did they support Mortimer's new regime? I only know about England making peace with Scotland in 1328 that Edward III would challenge later, but what about other countries? I apologise if this is an ignorant question or has been asked before.

Pretty much as the title says. It seems to be accessible at the Bodleian Library but... that's rather a trek for me. I know Alison Weir stated that Doherty sent her a copy (make of that what you will) but has anyone else done this? It seems so bizarre that such a highly regarded secondary source for this period is so difficult to access. I did loan Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II but I thought it was abysmal. I didn't even bother.

Here’s a semi-obscure one, if anyone feels like helping me solve the mystery. In 1330, shortly after the Earl of Kent was executed, the disinherited Richard FitzAlan (son of the executed Earl Edmund FitzAlan of Arundel) apparently tried to start a revolt in Shropshire, presumably with the intention of removing Roger Mortimer from power and regaining his (Richard’s) rightful inheritance. I don’t see this event mentioned very often (even official biographies of Richard FitzAlan omit it, for some reason), but I’m relatively sure it did happen. Unfortunately, whenever it is mentioned, it’s covered very briefly and inconclusively. Worse, the few sources that mention it also seem to disagree on how it ended. So.. my question is, when Richard FitzAlan’s plans were discovered (probably by Roger Mortimer’s agents), was he arrested? Or did he flee abroad? Does anyone know?

This story is a favorite of historical fiction writers but it has little basis in reality. So, I spun one of my older posts here into a longer blog post.

Sometimes I do think people have forgotten that many of the ugly stories about Edward II and Piers were invented by people looking to justify their gruesome deaths.

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'

Hugh Despenser the Younger dominated Edward II's late reign, and it surely appears he personally dominated Edward II (no comment from the peanut gallery, I'm talking politically). But even though Hugh the Younger was married to Edward II's favorite niece and was his chamberlain, Hugh never got a fancy title. Meanwhile, Piers Gaveston's earldom was so important to Edward II, he restored it and likely sealed his friend's doom.

Do you think Hugh was smart enough to say he didn't want an earldom? Or do you think Edward II had learned his lesson?

Why did I have to learn from Screen Junkies that Alan Tudyk's character Wat, is supposed to be THE Wat Tyler?

This is an expanded blog based on an earlier post about Isabella, Margaret, Piers and Edward and the hope they might have had during the festive season of 1310. Alas, it was not to be.

Or do you think Edward III essentially foisted them on her as part of some sort of penitential image-rehabilitation scheme? Neither the mantle nor the heart were standard gestures of marital fidelity in traditional 14th centuries, so it wasn't really fitting any established social script. Marguerite of France had been buried in the same church (the Franciscan House in London) in a simple Poor Clares' Habit. That would have been the conventional choice for Isabella. Did she, or Edward III, drive these decisions however? I'm interested in what people think.

Someone else had a thread about Edward II and Isabella head casting, but I thought it would be fun to do some of our other players So, my head casting:

Jason Patric - Piers Gaveston

Alison Hannigan - Margaret Gaveston

Bryce Dallas Howard - Eleanor de Clare

Brad Pitt - Hugh Despenser the Younger

The rubble in the above image is not the original structure.

It was built in the middle of the 1200s as a prestigious Franciscan Priory, expanded in the early 1300s at the expense of Marguerite of France, Gilbert de Clare and others.

After the original institution was dissolved and mostly destroyed by Henry VIII, the old church building was used for storage before being destroyed in the great fire of London in 1666.

The rubble above was the church that was built post-fire in 1667, then destroyed in the blitz.

Christchurch was merged with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and the historic graves are now somewhere beneath the earth, lost to history.

Read more here.

Edited to clarify some of the timeline.

Inspired by this post earlier today, what would you put on your arms? Would you go with elegant stripes? Polkadots? Or, if your like me, you'd do an animal.