The death?? ..of Edward the second

[andy1867]

I was taught the "Red hot poker" theory, and never actually questioned it, it seemed nicely medieval England in its "gory glory" so to speak.
But ive recently been listening to a historical podcast which not only casts doubt on the method of his death, but whether he actually died at all in 1327.
So am in the process of genning up on a subject I though was cut and dried .
All very interesting
Anyone else have an interest?

[Phil H]

I have a couple or three books on the subject.

I think it is pretty well now established that Edward II did not die (by poker or other means) in Berkeley Castle. He went abroad, and indeed met his son (Edward III) on the Rhine some years later. Certainly Edward met someone and rewarded him handsomely.

There is an element of doubt but I think this is probably one case where the traditional account will have to be changed.

I have read (or at least dipped into) the books below but am no expert and would not want to try to summarise the current version without time to revise.

I suggest your best bet is to do some reading:

Paul Doherty: "Isabella and the Strange Daeth of Edward II" Robinson p/back 2004

Ian Mortimer: "The Greatest Traitor" (Roger Mortimer): Pimlico p/b 2004

Ian Mortimer: "The Perfect King" (Edward III) Pimlico p/b 2007

Ian Mortimer: Medieval Intrigue; Decoding Royal Conspiracies" Continuum Books hardback 2010

Alison Weir: "Isabella" Piml;ico p/b 2006. [NOTE: Weir has different conclusions to Mortimer and Doherty both of which she has read.

Happy to discuss further should you wish.

Phil

[andy1867]

I have a couple or three books on the subject.

I think it is pretty well now established that Edward II did not die (by poker or other means) in Berkeley Castle. He went abroad, and indeed met his son (Edward III) on the Rhine some years later. Certainly Edward met someone and rewarded him handsomely.

There is an element of doubt but I think this is probably one case where the traditional account will have to be changed.

I have read (or at least dipped into) the books below but am no expert and would not want to try to summarise the current version without time to revise.

I suggest your best bet is to do some reading:

Paul Doherty: "Isabella and the Strange Daeth of Edward II" Robinson p/back 2004

Ian Mortimer: "The Greatest Traitor" (Roger Mortimer): Pimlico p/b 2004

Ian Mortimer: "The Perfect King" (Edward III) Pimlico p/b 2007

Ian Mortimer: Medieval Intrigue; Decoding Royal Conspiracies" Continuum Books hardback 2010

Alison Weir: "Isabella" Piml;ico p/b 2006. [NOTE: Weir has different conclusions to Mortimer and Doherty both of which she has read.

Happy to discuss further should you wish.

Phil

Just ordered the Mortimer book on Mortimer so to speak, I presume the Edward the 3rd meeting is the one with "William The Welshman"
I find Roger Mortimer a very interesting character, might have to indulge in the Alison Weir book also
Thanks Phil
Andy

[Phil H]

Ian Mortimer is a good historian and writer, but as I understand it he is seeking to establish a new form of historical methodology (akin to the old inherent military probability). So - while not seeking to denigrate his work in any way (I like his books and have them on my shelves) - I think one must at this stage be a tad cautious about his conclusions.

Weir, on the other hand, I find somewhat too "traditional".

Hence my reluctance to say the new theory on Edward (survival) is now wholly accepted. I think it should be and will be - but only time will tell.

I think you are correct about the meeting but will need to check.

Paul Doherty, by the way, is a headmaster who also writes history books. He has a good series on historical mysteries - Elizabeth I (did she have an illegitimate child by Dudley, who killed Amy Robsart, was the Queen murdered in 1603 etc); William Rufus; and the "murders" of Tutankhamen and Alexander the Great. There is also one on a theft of the Crown Jewels in about the time of Edward I.

Doherty also does series of medieval whodunnits which are very much above average in quality. I particularly like te Hugh Cobett series - Hugh is a clerk working for Edward I and the plots often centre around actual historical events.

Phil

[Errata]

I just don't see an argument for Isabella and Mortimer deciding to let him live. There is no benefit in a living Edward, and quite a bit of benefit in a dead Edward.

[Phil H]

Well, you just have to make up your own mind based on the evidence.

Essentially do you believe the Fieschi letter and what do you make of Edward III's meeting with a stranger called William of Wales?

Stranger things have happened in history, and Edward's survival allows a lot of little things to fall into place and to make sense.

To be honest it isn't something I feel strongly about (unlike Richard III and the "princes") but I no longer cling to the old story.

Phil

[andy1867]

I just don't see an argument for Isabella and Mortimer deciding to let him live. There is no benefit in a living Edward, and quite a bit of benefit in a dead Edward.

Although not regicide as Edward had been deposed or abdicated under duress it's still a risky step to take.
The Fieschi letter mentioned by Phil is held to be an authentic document whether its truthful in its content is an open question
The duke of Kent was also under the impression that Edward was alive and well interesting story as is the meeting of Edward 3 and this William of Wales character
Andy

[Phil H]

There is no benefit in a living Edward, and quite a bit of benefit in a dead Edward.

One consideration might be that killing an anointed king has always been considered a VERY big step -people avoided it if they could.

I'm not thinking about death in battle here - Harold, Richard III - but murder or execution.

Richard II was probably starved to death at Pntefract in secret.

Henry VI was probably murdered in the Tower after Tewkesbury - but the details were kept secret and it was given out that he had died to "pure displeasure"!
Elizabeth agonised for ages over the judicial execution of Mary of Scotland.
Even Parliament only executed Charles I as a last resort.

So maybe Isabella and Mortimer would have been prepared to agree to Edward living subject to certain conditions. One thing was certain, he wasn't coming back. And as I think Doherty mentions, Edward may have been broken in spirit and body as the result of his imprisonment and experiences. He never liked being king, I think.

Just my opinion though.

Phil

[andy1867]

Maybe the then prince Edward might also have had reservations that would have to be taken into account
After all he was the future king and it would be storing up trouble to ignore his opinions
Andy

[Mayerling]

Hi Phil,

You mentioned the possible theft of the crown Jewels in the reign of Edward I (d. 1307). I was aware of only the loss of King John's jewels in "the Wash" in 1216, the loss of King Charles I's jewels in a small ship sinking on some Scottish Loch in the 1640s, and the still unsolved theft of the Irish Crown Jewels in 1907 (which involved the brother of explorer Ernest Shackleton).

I have a copy of Mortimer's "The Greatest Traitor" but have not read it yet.

There was a mention on this thread regarding William Rufus - yes I really believe he was mistaken for a deer! In a period (that took in the Middle Ages up to the Counter-Reformation) where anyone suspected of poisoning or killing royalty was tortured, Walter Tirel was asked questions that sounded like he witnessed a wall collapsing and thanked for his cooperation. Quite unlike what happened to his descendant Sir James Tyrell in 1502 about his activities in 1483-85 regarding the missing Edward V and his brother.

By the way, any thoughts about Dr. Roderigo Lopez and the 1596 "poisoning plot" against Elizabeth I (which may have made Shakespeare consider a play with a villain who was Jewish - i.e. Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice")?

Jeff

[andy1867]

Hiya mayerling
With the William rufus wotsit don't you find it a little suspicious that the next in line to the throne was on the same hunting trip?
And everyone buggered off and left a servant to. take his body home
Andy

[Mayerling]

Hi Andy,

I agree the whole thing smells. William Rufus had been on the throne for a bit over a decade, and was generally rather disliked. I believe it was murder. Of course there are hunting accidents frequently, but now and then something pops up that does not look quite right. In 1893 there was that shooting accident at Ardlamont, Scotland involving the death of Cecil Hambrough and the person who would go on trial for that case, Alfred Monson. Monson (like Madeleine Smith) got a "Not proven" verdict. William Roughead (who wrote about the mystery, did some research and found that a decade afterwards Monson was advising another party on life insurance, and the subject of that life insurance policy just managed to avoid an "accident". So much for the idea of having a "Scot" Verdict regarding the failure of the proof.

Jeff

[Phil H]

Oh, I think William Rufus was almost certainly assassinated - and probably by his brother Henry - who's first act was to rush off to Winchester to seize the royal treasury and then to get himself crowned.

The sons of the Conqueror were not a very harmonious bunch. Robert, who inherited Normandy, found himself imprisoned (in Cardiff, I think) for decades, by Henry.

William II was unpopular with the church, and may have led an unconventional lifestyle (homosexual or bi maybe) and there may well have been enough opponents around to ensure that a coup was successful. On the plus side, I don't think he was as bad a ruler as is sometimes made out, he appears to have been a reasonable soldier and it maybe that his personality and sardonic humour (like Caligula's) got in the way of his posthumous reputation.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Getting back to the original subject of this thread - I wonder if the "horrid legend" of Edward's demise is due to the play "Edward II" by Christopher Marlowe, where a psycopath is hired to kill the king, and does so with the red hot poker (only to be killed himself a moment later). It certainly is a gruesome kind of theatrical scene, but Elizabethans enjoyed horrendous deaths (Shakespeare's initial play "Titus Andronicus" is full of them, and one of his last plays, "The Winters Tale" has one courtier exit hurredly chased by a bear - we are told he was killed by the bear - and Lear has old Gloucester blinded on stage). But like "Richard III" enshrining the black legend of the last Yorkist monarch, "Edward II" probably helped with the demise of Longshanks' son.

By the way, Winston Churchill's first volume of "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" repeats the story of Edward's horrific murder.

Jeff

[andy1867]

http://historyofengland.typepad.com/files/94a-the-mysterious-death-of-edward-ii.mp3

lighthearted podcast on the matter for any interested
Andy