The death?? ..of Edward the second

[Phil H]

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


Churchill was a great writer (a wordsmith) and a great narrative historian. But much of his work was done by researchers and before WWII, so it is now old.

Further, Churchill loved the old stories for their own familar sakes and repeated them.

In the late 60s or early 70s, when part-works were all the rage, there was a very good weekly illustrated magazine which took a chapter or so of English Speaking Peoples and augmented it with commentary and up-to-date essays by leading historians of the day. So even then, 40 odd years ago, it was recognised that WSC was out of date in some respects.

These days I encourage people - such as my godson (mid twenties) - to read Churchill for enjoyment but take his "history" with a pinch of salt.

It is interesting that I heard AL Rowse (probably also in the 70s) on the radio, defend his book on the Wars of the Roses which relied utterly on Shakespeare (despite all the work done to disprove the Richard III myth even then). His stout defence was that RIII was better off as the arch-villain among English kings than as a short-reigning run-of-the-mill king. Rowse - my opinion of him as an historian evaporated at that moment - was unrepetent.

The stories are good, I grew up on them - British history as a picture strip (I managed to find a copy recently), Ladybird books and so on - and the illustrations are still vivid in my mind. But we have to outgrow them, don't we - as our recapturing of the past changes in the light of deeper research and changing views?

Phil

[Mayerling]

Some time back I heard of the criticisms regarding Churchill's reliance on the research of hired hands and of his second-rate opinions based on traditions in the "English-Speaking Peoples" volumes. Whether it is true about earlier works (the biography of the first Duke of Marleborough) is something I can't answer - his volumes on the Second World War remain important (at least for presenting his official point of view). So are his autobiographical books or his book on his contemporaries.

I enjoyed the "English - Speaking Peoples". His first volume also suggested that if King Arthur was fictional he should have been true (an interesting point of view expressed there). He took a very pro-McClellan stand when dealing with that General and his cross-fighting with Lincoln, Stanton, and the Confederates under Lee. One critic of the work (who called King James II a "royal blockhead") could not understand Churchill's gentle respect for that monarch's affection for Catholicism to the point that it cost him his throne.

I have one book of Rowse's about the Elizabethan period - another one of many books I have had for decades but failed to read.

Jeff

[Phil H]

Some time back I heard of the criticisms regarding Churchill's reliance on the research of hired hands and of his second-rate opinions based on traditions in the "English-Speaking Peoples" volumes.

Like many busy and famous people, Churchill had a limited amount of time for detailed research at first hand. He used researchers, but good ones. one of them - whose name escapes me, later became a very eminent historian in his own right. (I'll post it if I can find the reference or recall the name.)

Edited to add: Maurice Ashley is I think the man, though I stand to be corrected.

Their trick was to write the "purple passages" personally and leave much of the rest to assistants corrected by them.

Whether it is true about earlier works (the biography of the first Duke of Marleborough) is something I can't answer

Marlborough, like the biography of his father, were works of a different nature. VERY personal. But I suspect much of the "devilling" was done by young assistants, all the same.

- his volumes on the Second World War remain important (at least for presenting his official point of view).

But always remember, WSC's intent was to get his version of events into the public domain FIRST. Which he did. He still shapes views and perspectives on WWII in the public mind when these are not actually valid in the light of current thinking, knowledge and evidence. But Winston understood the power of myth and set out to create one. he succeeded.

I enjoyed the "English - Speaking Peoples". His first volume also suggested that if King Arthur was fictional he should have been true (an interesting point of view expressed there).

WSC remains one of the GREAT writers. You are right to have enjoyed his work.

One critic of the work (who called King James II a "royal blockhead") could not understand Churchill's gentle respect for that monarch's affection for Catholicism to the point that it cost him his throne.

Don't forget that WSC was a romantic monarchist to his innermost being. He revered kingship. One of his worst pre-war mistakes - among several - was seeking to side with Edward VIII at the time of the abdication. The ridicule he received almost destroyed him! He helped revise the famous abdication speech. So he would see James, for all his faults as a wronged anointed sovereign. In fact, I believe modern schol;arship is beginning to assert that James was "wronged" and that a powerful Whig conspiracy toppled him and then wrote huistory to put them in the right!!

Rowse is now so much horse doda - now discredited, I believe, for a number of reasons - but he does have insights as a Tudor historian (his specialism) to a degree.

[Cogidubnus]

Please, please do keep this fascinating thread going...as a would-be history student who was, in schooldays, virtually forced to give up formal study of the subject, this is a much belated lifeline...and I'm 60 this year and still learning so much...

Best regards to all

Dave

[Mayerling]

Dave, I'm 59 (so we are almost even time-wise). I'll be glad to keep contributing.

Right now I am completing the book on J. Bruce Ismay idiotic survival, by Frances Wilson ["How to Survive the Titanic; or, The Sinking of J. Bruce Ismay" (New York, Harper Collins - Harper Perennial, 2011), 328 p. illustrated.] The Wilson book is very good on the life of Ismay, and I recommend it. One interesting point - the cover shows the sinking of the Titanic (not the Willy Lorsch - I think that was his name - illustration), only it is a picture based on a well known drawing of the sinking of the Lusitania except it has been reversed. Oh well - so what should be the coast of Ireland has been transformed into a portion of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Otherwise the book is fine.

I also picked up (at the Argosy Bookstore in Manhattan) a volume of the letters of William Thackeray from the 1880s, and Elizabeth Jenkins' "Elizabeth and Leicester", so I'll soon be able to discuss Amy Robsart's death at Cumnor Place in 1560. Finally I have picked up "William's Mary" by Elizabeth Hamilton (London: Taplinger's, 1967) about James II's oldest daughter who reigned with her cousin - husband from 1688 - 1694. What are you currently reading?

Jeff

[Phil H]

And I'm 62 - all three of us of a "certain generation".

Amy Robsart and what happened to her would be an excellent topic for a separate thread I think. You'll enjoy the Jenkin's book - dated a bit (originally published 1961) but she was another good writer. Her biography of Elizabeth is also worth reading.

On Robin and Amy - look out "Death and the Virgin" by Chris Skidmore - in p/b in the UK (it is specifically on the mystery and he includes a sketch of the "pair of stairs"; and "Elizabeth and Leicester" by Sarah Gristwood (one of the best of the new generation of historical writers for a general readership.

Phil

[Phil H]

Returning to Edward II and the poker.

According to Ian Mortimer in "Medieval Intrigue" (2010) p 321 - in 1353 Edward III summoned Ranulph Higden to bring all his chronicles from Chester to show him. These apparently contained references to the "sodomitical torture".

So the story was clearly in circulation VERY early.

On page 52, Mortimer writes that it appears that the "anal rape" narrative would not appear to have been in circulation much before the completion of the longer Brut in the mid 1330s and was treated with scepticism until Higden's Polychronicon was circulated in the mid 1340s.

All rather detailed but I think it establishes when the story first emerged beyond much dount - whether fact or (as now seems likely) a total invention since it appears Edward II may have survived.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jeff/Phil

Interesting that similarity of age...

What are you currently reading?

Just started a reread of Mark Urban's "The Man who broke Napoleon's Codes" and my current new read is Alan Sharp's "Jack the Ripper and the Irish Press".

Next in the pipeline is Antonia Frasers "Cromwell our Chief of Men"...this looks a little heavy and is currently intimidating me by its very presence...I've been subconsciously avoiding it for some months now, but its baleful presence on the shelf has been bugging me for a while now.

Not sure, to be honest, if my reading programme is best described as either diverse or perverse!

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

I like Urban.

Antonia Fraser I find scrupulous in her research, but colourless in her writing. By that I mean that the books are so huge any attempt at characterisation is drowned in a deluge of detail. I gave up trying to read her other than as a mine for information years ago. Good luck.

Her mother, Elizabeth Longford, I loved. Her biography of hy hero Wellington i re-read every so often for sheer pleasure. Longford had wit, style and an ability to select exactly the right anecdote of bit of detail.

I picked up today in Waterstones (buy one get one half-price) one book on the burning down of the olf palace of westminster in 1834 - looks promising and readable. And another on the 1806 murder of the local rector in a village near Worcester. (I'll give the exact titles later when I have the books to hand.)

I'm also re-reading the "Forstye Saga" on kindle. Not history but an interesting reflection on manners and views in around 1886 - so relevant to JtR. I think sometimes we overlook how much the way of thinking has changed since the 1880s. I have just read an (albeit ironic and satyric) section on middle class views on philanthropy. Exaggerated for effect, but if it shows even a modicum of truth - it is something we should take into account.

The book has also set me thinking in new directions about Druitt's family.

For the rest, I am still deep in Gettysburg, but dug out my books on Dudley, Amy Robsart and Cumnor in case we get to discussions about that!

Regards guys,

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

The Years of the Sword

Hi Phil

Her mother, Elizabeth Longford, I loved. Her biography of hy hero Wellington i re-read every so often for sheer pleasure. Longford had wit, style and an ability to select exactly the right anecdote of bit of detail.

Oh yes...one of my oft-visited favourites too

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

We have a lot in common it seems.

The two new books I bought today and mentioned earlier are:

"Damn His Blood" Peter Moore - the village is Oddingley, the rector, George Parker.

"The Day Parliament Burned Down" Caroline Shenton.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Hi fellas,

A certain generation - unfortunately the previous one has been named the greatest generation for winning World War II. I suppose we are the inheritance generation.

The book on the burning of Parliament sounds intriguing - always was curious about that incident (which Turner captured in two paintings). That was the Parliament building in which Spencer Percival was assassinated.

I have a book, "The Oddingley Murders" by Carlos Flick, about that 1806 case. It was published by the University of Delaware Press in 1991.

I have the two volume biography of Wellington and still have not read it (I started to about ten years ago but put it aside). I read Longford's biography on Queen Victoria and liked it.

Is that book by Lady Fraser a different volume from "The Lord Protector" (admittedly a large biography). I did read that and "Mary, Queen of Scots". Not totally bland -but the stories certainly pushed by their own momentum.

I also have an earlier book on Robsart - Sir Walter Scott's "Kenilworth". Also unread.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

There is a reference to the Oddingley Murders in Major Griffiths' "Mysteries of the Police and Crime" (1901 edition), Volume II, Chapter 25, p. 347-349. That chapter involves how bodies are disposed of (so it brings in the murder of the killer of Rev. Parker).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Returning to the issue of Edward II....

I always suspected that given Edward's close homosexual relationships with his two chief advisors (both of whom were executed at different points in his reign), the "poker" murder was supposed to be a symbolic commentary on his sexual habits as well as a supposed way to kill the monarch "without leaving any apparent physical traces" (unless the corpse was turned around - hardly likely in a royal funeral of 1327).

Jeff

[Phil H]

Kenilworth is UTTER fiction.

Scott is wonderful (dated but a great novelistic imagination), but no historian. Ivanhoe and the Talisman are great books with superb characters, and Scott pretty well invented the historical novel as we know it today.

I think the death of Amy is pushed back to 1574 the year Elizabeth made her famous visit to Kenilworth.

I suggest read it after you have read about the real events.

Spencer Percival (about whom there is a recent book) was killed in the lobby of the House of Commons.

The House was then in the ancient St Stephen's Chapel (a building akin to the wonderful, indeed miraculously lovely) Sainte Chapelle in Paris. The lobby was the portion of the chapel that once stood outside the rood screen. Today the size and shape of the chapel is marked by St Stephen's Hall, an imposing corridor linking Westminster Hall (medieval) to Barry and Pugin's Central Lobby.

This was the building in which Charles I sought to arrest the five members - "The birds have flown!" and Speaker Lenthall's response, "Sir, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as this House commands me." It was the chamber of both Pitts and Charles James Fox.

Under the wainscotting installed by Wren lurked wall-paintings of Edward III and his family, taking us back almost to the period we have been discussing.

Yes, the fire was a great loss - without it we might still have Henry III's bedchamber (the painted chamber). But much of the medieval palace had been burned down early in Henry VIII's reign and it may be that the fire allowed something itself momentous to be built.

Did you know that the present layout of the House of Commons exactly mirrors the old House in St Stephens? When Edward VI gave the disused chapel to the Commons, the Speaker put his chair where the altar had been, and the parties sat in the pews facing across the floor - hence our adversarial debating style (also influenced by English trial practice). The Bar of the House is where the screen used to be, and the lobby - as noted above - was the former ante-chapel. So medieval customs live on.

Phil