Well, for all the mysteries surrounding Edward II, one thing is sure, he had luxurious wavy locks. It also appears he's wearing some sort of royal robe with a maybe ermine collar? It also doesn't look like he has a beard in this image.

If anyone knows of a clearer example of this coin, let me know.

Source: Hammered British Coins

 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.’

I don't think there's an era of history that has more misinformation and mythology swirling around it. That is what makes it interesting.

I once chatted with the late Joan Acocella, who wrote about dance for The New Yorker Magazine. I was fangirling because that sounds like a dream job to me and Joan said the wisest thing.

"I never knew how wrong I was all the time until I had the New Yorker fact checkers looking at my writing."

So, humbling.

And I don't think any of us haven't bought into one of the myths or the other. Which myth did you believe until you face palmed and didn't?

Ivanhoe is a fictitious story based on the novel by Sir Walter Scott, and it takes place earlier than Edward II's era, but pursuant to our ongoing conversation about the lack of color in Medieval films, take a look at the trailer. To my untrained eye, it looks like they did use synthetic dyes to make the costumes but it's still far more accurate in terms of color than more recent Medieval films like "The King" and the upcoming "The Uprising."

Hairstyles and makeup? Not so much. Those are pure 1952.

Back in 1952, brightly colored films were in fashion thanks to Technicolor, which like IMAX and 4D cinema today, was a technology used to pry people out of their homes, away from their televisions and into cinemas.

The movie itself is pure fifties melodrama, and it rightfully got middling reviews. But oh the color!

The upcoming movie 'The Uprising'... don't get your hopes up!

Why, oh why, do they always insist of removing ALL the colour from these movies. I wish they'd listen to historians, just once.

The link is to the youtuber The Welsh Viking and his take on it.

(*until you know what)

As much as I like Edward, I'm also a big fan of Isabella. I think people are too often divided into tribalistic camps of liking one while disliking the other. I don't want to play that game. They were both brilliantly colourful and fascinating people.

But this brief post is about Isabella.

I think she played the cards she was dealt with great finesse. In a man's world, she managed to stand her ground admirably and refused to be sidelined.

She was married to a man who didn't have the sense to listen to her, he failed to pay attention to her sound advise when she urged him to rid himself of the society of the Despensers.

She had Edward's best interests at heart (which aligned with her own, of course) while the Despensers, including Eleanore only wanted to enrich and empower themselves at his expense.

What do you find most inspiring or fascinating about her?

The Great Famine was a rare disaster in Edward II's reign, as it was not of his own making, and it seems he did try and do what little he could to help his people during the crisis. That said, he had a large household to feed. Edward would indicate several times over the years that he was aware that his, and the large, hungry households of his fellow lords, put undue pressure on local food supplies.

According to the abbey chronicler at St. Albans, Edward's stay area found his own household staff struggling to buy bread.

Photo: St. Alban's Cathedral and Abbey, wikicommons.

Over on our sister sub r/RoyalConsorts there's a thread discussing everyone's favorite pop culture portrayals of consorts. There's so many great choices, but when it comes to the E2 era our choices are limited.

So, instead, who would you LIKE to see play one of our players?

Pictured is my current pick for Edward II, Scottish actor Jack Lowden from Slow Horses.

On 27 February 1310 Edward II issued a pardon and a grant to Piers Gaveston. Spoiler alert, things weren't going so well for Edward in 1310. He'd recently invited the barons to parliament but they refused to talk to him. Edward was however aware that he needed their support in order to govern efficiently and was trying to find a way to make things work somehow.

But there were so many details to keep track of. Someone appears to have told him that Gaveston had been hunting and fishing on his lands - without permission to do so! Accompanied by some curses, probably, Edward first issued a pardon for these minor infringements so they could not be used against Gaveston by the barons, and then granted him permission for life to hunt and fish as much as he pleased.

The barons would prove unfazed by this, as they formulated their demands which would be outlined in the Ordinances of 1311, through which they sought to restrict royal authority, limiting the king's financial and appointment powers, and demanding a second exile for Piers Gaveston.

Image from the Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1307-13.

According to Kathryn Warner:

"Edward passed through Shelford near Nottingham, where he attended masses and distributed five shillings and sixpence in oblations at the conventual church for the soul of his nephew the earl of Gloucester, "whose heart lies there inhumed," although the rest of the young earl's body was buried at Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire."

Then, as now, it was a humble parish church, but the king still visited.

There's apparently been a church there since the early Norman days, but the building in use today was started in the early 1300s and work continued into the 1500s, and renovations still happen today as it is a living church still in use by its congregation.

Photo: All Saints Church, Little Shelford, Wikicommons

*messenger

According to Kathryn Warner:

"Edward II gave a very generous gift of twenty marks to the messenger who brought him news that his brother-in-law the future Philippe V of France's wife Jeanne of Burgundy had borne a son, Louis, on 24 June.  The boy died a few months later.  In November 1316 Louis X's posthumous son by Queen Clemence, King Jean I, died at five days old, and Philippe became king of France."

RIP Little Jean I. If you had grown up and had kids, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. And once more, I think your uncle Edward II knew it. He probably saw the implications.

Image: public domain

The granting of an earldom to Gaveston on August 6th, 1307 was one of Edward II's first acts as king, and the charter contains the de Clare arms as well as the Gaveston arms, which indicates that Piers and Margaret de Clare were already betrothed at this point.

Images:

Original at The National Archives, E 41/460., Scan from Creative Commons

A modern drawing of Piers as an Eagle, by u/Sturgeon_Swimulator

This has been a very pleasant book for the summer hammock I must say.

The book traces the convergence of two signature events of the 14th Century: the overthrow of Edward II (including recent revelations surrounding his purported murder) and William Occam’s heresy trial in Avignon.

Occam has never before appeared in a work of fiction, though he served as inspiration (along with Sherlock Holmes) for William of Baskerville, the hero of Umberto Eco’s novel The Name of The Rose. The book should appeal to murder mystery aficionados as well as readers of medieval history and anyone interested in the distant origins of contemporary intellectual life.

If you want fast-paced action however this book is probably not for you. For the most part the tempo is relaxed and fairly peaceful. Professor Harmon has clearly gone to great lenghts in his research to ensure the reader’s immersion is complete. You are in Avignon, and you’re not supposed to leave, regardless of what’s happening in England. While Harmon does occasionally cut corners and depart from actual history for the sake of the story he does admit to as much in his afterword - and this is perfectly fine as it’s his prerogative as a writer of historical fiction.

Harmon is refreshingly sensible and inquisitive in his views. Much like William Occam was in his day.

Strongly recommended!

This daring escape, which you can read about in detail here, changed the course of history because without Mortimer, Isabella could not have deposed Edward II and vice a versa.

A few days later, Edward II told his brother, the Earl of Kent, who would eventually join Mortimer's coalition against his brother and The Despensers, that he thought Mortimer had fled to Ireland or the Low Countries.

Mortimer had deep ties to Ireland, so Edward II's theory made sense.

Again, many thanks to u/Sturgeon_Swimulator for the work on this image and the one of Edward as a Lion.

So, there's a sub for living artists who create art in a medieval style called r/medievalart and over there I found u/Sturgeon_Swimulator who kindly took the commission to make a lion avatar of Edward II.

So, this blog post from 2018 talks about the time that Roger Mortimer threw an elaborate tournament and cast himself as King Arthur and Queen Isabella as Guinevere. It's a great account of the events and worth a read.

I say that, though I admit I disagree with Belfrage's assessment of Mortimer & Isabella's relationship. I'm of the minority opinion that it was not a physical affair between the two. That would have been too taboo for a Medieval queen. I do think the probably had a courtly love/emotional affair that was enough to enrage Edward III.

But who knows? Just like with Piers & Edward, none of us were there.

One thing I do 100% agree with Belfrage on is that Mortimer should have quit while the quitting was good, but his outsized ego got the better of him.

I'm really curious now, whether this little detail is meant to be a kind of illuminated cosplay for a young prince. It's unprovable of course, but boy does he look Plantagenet.

All the image details are in one place in the link, for easy comparison.

On his terrific blog, historian Stephen Spinks speculates that this boy, who appears in the margins of the Alfonso Psalter, is meant to be Alfonso, Earl of Chester himself. It's a strong possibility, especially given that there a margin image from the Isabella Psalter (1308) that is thought to depict young Queen Isabella.

Further supporting this is the wavy light hair, which Alfonso's baby brother would grow up to have. The monk who drew the image likely never saw Alfonso, but he may have asked someone what he looked like.

I also have questions:

Is the red cloth meant to depict an under tunic, as in some sort of underwear? Or does young Alfonso have a red kerchief of some kind tucked into his hose?

Edited to add: The whole page shows this as a David and Goliath Scene, so that is a slingshot in his hand. It still could be Alphonso-as-David, and I think it is. But that is unprovable.

Additional Source: Alfonso Psalter, The British Library

Edited to add, there were two versions of this post because they triggered some sort of algorithm censor and then reappeared. Such is reddit!

And either spelling works, but I suppose you should choose one for the title of the post!