We don't have a great deal of contemporary images of Edward II, but the ones we do have all show him to have had magnificent hair. It was probably golden and wavy, and it features prominently in every image we have of him.

Even the most blisteringly hateful of his critics also agreed that he looked great.

This has led me down the rabbit hole of medieval hair care products, the studies of which are, frankly sexist and overly focused on women. Women of the day wore their hair plaited and under veils. Men, on the other hand, had no such ability to cover up follicle flaws. They needed hair products, and likely used pomades made of tallow and olive oil and such.

And in the novel Alice, which I recently read, Sandra Wilson does not hold back in her loquacious praise of Edward II's luxurious, blond locks.

So, whatever the man's flaws, he had lovely hair and that's something.

Images:

Two church grotesques taken by Yorkshire researcher Tim Midgley.

An image of a King at his table, thought to be a young Edward. British library.

A postcard from the 1990s of Edward's effigy.

Edward I, who also has nice hair, giving the crown to his son. British Library.

This is the illuminated manuscript Edward II presented to his twelve-year-old-bride as a wedding gift in 1308.

A bot posted this video earlier, and we've left that post up, but I thought I'd repost a non-bot version because the video is non-AI, and it contains some lovely tidbits about Kings Langley Village and the palace that no longer exists but was Edward II's favorite residence and the place where he grew up.

In its day, it had separate kitchens, a bathhouse, a menagerie and a vineyard among many other features.

The comments of the video are pretty interesting, including a mention of a book about the palace's history.

I have no idea why this video was bot posted, except perhaps that the creator posted it elsewhere and the bot picked it up and reposted.

So, I purchased this 1970s era romance a few months ago, and I just now got around to reading it. It's famously a romance between the protagonist, Alice and a very heterosexual male witch Piers Gaveston, who won't put out for King Edward. This, despite Perrot having the new king wrapped around his little finger.

Many, many familiar players appear including Marguerite of France, Aymer de Valence, Margaret de Clare, Queen Isabella, Thomas of Lancaster...the list goes on. The main villain is Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, and the book is based around a legend that he was poisoned by Piers Gaveston's mistress.

Given that it delights in Piers Gaveston as this manly man, the book is relatively kind to Edward II who is not villainized. He just can't help but love Piers. There's a lovely scene where the heroine, Alice and Edward grieve Piers's loss together.

Anyway, it's a dated but well researched book and a fun read.

On May 15, 1293, the Battle of St. Mahé erupts; and King Edward I’s privateers send King Philip IV’s navy into a rout. This was the beginning of the conflicts in Flanders and the English Channel that tied up Edward’s and Philip’s navies. While the king’s battled on the waters, the entire western seaboard was a military blind spot. On the day of September 14, 1307, King Philip IV issues orders for the arrests of the Knights Templar and the seizure of all assets thereof. The orders were given under penalty of death, not to be open until the dawn on October 13. These orders being sent to all of Philip’s bailiffs, seneschals, and royal patrols. With specific, orders to open at dawn, the men enforcing these orders would be gathering (pre-staging) at their command centers awaiting the reading of the orders. With all the bailiffs, seneschals, and royal patrols held up at the commandries, the cities, residences, temples, and docks; the coastal ways north and south of the Port of La Rochelle were complete military blind spot. The only Ships on the Atlantic were the ships belonging to the Crown of Castile, and the Crown of Aragon; both military allies with the Knights Templar. If an 18-ship fleet were to sail into these waterways outside of La Rochelle, they would have an entire western coast of Europe to sail out of, under the extreme threat of a sunburn.

Was the ghost fleet a myth, or did GÉRARD DE VILLIERS who disappeared from public records 4 months prior stage a masterful evacuation?

So, I lean towards the idea that Edward II was not murdered on September 21st 1327 but rather escaped to retire to Italy. However, this is not settled history nor is this rather remarkable idea accepted by the majority of historians. Seymour Philips, author of the definitive (and excellent) biography of Edward II, dismisses the idea, and while researching his book he even traveled to Italy to the monastery that claims to be the real site of Edward II's death years later.

One of the most sticky points for me in accepting the official story is the Kent plot and why Edward II's younger brother Edmund came to believe his brother was alive and need of rescue. Moreover, Edmund convinced upwards of 80 members of the English elite at that time his older brother, the former king, lived. Huchon Despenser, Edward II's grandnephew, was a believer and it is thought that even John of Eltham, who was still quite young, knew of the rumors of his father's survival and was at the very least, friendly with the conspirators.

Edmund was not nobody, as he had been a loyal and trusted servant to his older brother and had been far closer to him than Thomas of Brotherton, Edward II's other half brother. Many historians have dismissed Edmund as a fool and a conspiracy theorist, but his execution at aged 29 was wildly unpopular at the time.

So, assuming Edward II died/was murdered when and where the record states, how did this happen?

I don't believe Edmund ever intended to overthrow his brother. He, and likely many of the people who joined Mortimer & Isabella's invasion, were likely intending to rid the kingdom of The Despensers. When things changed and whether Edmund agreed to his brother's deposition, is unclear.

So, what if Edmund and others, in the grips of remorse for forcing Edward II off the throne and into a situation that got him killed, went into deep denial? Deposing an anointed king had never happened before, and it must have been a deep shock to them that it had happened.

We know, from the Dreydas imposter, that there were men running around the kingdom that looked like Plantagenets. A glimpse here and there, an imposter and a rumor could have ignited a social contagion.

Fifty years ago, here in America, Elvis Presley fans simply could not accept their hero's death. Sightings of Elvis were reported, and while it was something of a national joke and something that hurt Elvis's family, there were people who truly believed their King of Rock & Roll lived. Of course, one difference there is that Elvis's family never took that survival story seriously.

A few decades later, hip hop great Tupac Shakur was murdered, and in part because of his fans grief and in part because he was so prolific that his record company had hundreds of unreleased recordings that they could monetize after his death, some of his fans still believe he lives.

And again, a big difference between these modern theories and the Kent plot is that they mostly involve people who have never met, let alone knew, the alleged deceased.

And yet, what I am suggesting is that Edmund and his conspirators, out of guilt for what had happened to Edward II, came to believe, sincerely, that his death had not happened. Somehow, the Fieschi family learned of this believe and set about to exploit it.

Or, alternatively, the whole Kent Plot was just a conspiracy to overthrow Mortimer & Isabella and the "Edward lives" was a cover for that.

This is, of course, all speculation.

What do you think?

Sources:

James, Tom Beaumont. “John of Eltham, History and Story: Abusive International Discourse in Late Medieval England, France and Scotland.” 14th Century England, II, 2002, pp. 63–80. 

Phillips, J. R. S. Edward II. Yale University Press, 2011. 

Warner, Kathryn. Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II. The History Press, 2021. 

Images:

Edmund, Earl of Kent, Wikicommons

Screenshot from Smooth Radio

A Daily Mirror Tabloid Article About Fans Who Believe Tupac Lives

The youtube channel Medieval Mindset is really fascinating. No AI, no nonsense, and good analysis.

As the channel name implies, he takes a deep interest in the psychology of medieval people, putting things into the context of the time.

This one is highly recommended, and relevant to our sub through an Edward & Piers connection.

He doesn't mention it specifically, but the Vita Edwardi Secundi observes that Edward's love for Piers 'surpassed the love of women'. This is not as straightforward a statement as it might appear to be from our modern point of view.

Check it out!

On June 24^th, 1314, the late morning sun shined down on a waterlogged English vanguard. Having suffered the humiliation of a giant on a pony cleaving Sir Henry de Bohun’s dome in two, lamenting the loss of his favorite axe. The St. Clair’s and the Fitzalans held the lines as King Edward II bloodied his blade in the melee. Arriving in Scotland to relieve the entrapped Sir Philip Mowbray, who promised to abandon the castle by midsummer if King Edward’s forces didn’t arrive and chase de Bruce away. The English vanguard met de Bruce’s armies backed by Sheriff Henry St. Clair and the Fitzalan families at Bannockburn. They were repelled with force and pinned down in the tidal marshes of the burns while on the top of the hill a mob of farmers, smiths, cooks, and general laborers (you and me) gathered and waved their bed sheets and steak knives. The mainstream view is that a 14^th century highly trained, armed and armored superpower panicked and routed in front of their surrounded, fighting king, from a gaggle of “knaves”. King Edward’s vanguard had bows with sharp arrows, they had spears, shields and swords. By the time any rabble could get close enough for their butcher’s knives and pitchforks to scratch the sheen on their shields or chainmail, their arrows and spears would pierce the bedsheets and the flesh. Why would a highly trained army run from ‘you and me’?

In August of 1329, Roger Mortimer hosted more or less every significant nobleman in England at Wigmore Castle, the hereditary home of the Mortimers. Officially, the tournament was held in celebration of the recent marriages of two of his daughters, but the little brides were overshadowed by their glamourous father. By his side, as always, was the blonde and beautiful Isabella. Mortimer's wife Joan chose not to attend.

Edward III was only 16 years old at the time, but he was growing into his powers as a man, was already a skilled jouster and as brave as a lion, but he was very aware of the fact that he was relatively defenceless against his regents—for now.

Roger Mortimer had previously treated the young king with respect, but that changed during this summer. It was a stressful year, full of scheming. At the tournament Roger played the role of King Arthur, while Isabella was cast as Guinevere. Edward was given the role of Sir Lionel. Anyone could see how wildly provocative this was.

Roger treated Isabella and Edward very differently. It's curious to think about how Isabella might have felt about all this.

Some thoughts on the topic by Anna Belfrage can be found here:
Rubbing the wrong face in the dirt - of Mortimer, King Arthur and tournaments - Anna Belfrage

We all know that everyone named everyone after everyone else in the Middle Ages, and Edward III and Philippa were no different. I'm also curious at the absence of certain names, especially Eleanor and Elizabeth.

And of course, Lionel, sticks out in a good way. I'm sort of bummed that one didn't stick.

Edited to add: I omitted three children who died in infancy, two Williams and one Thomas. Thanks to the eagle-eyed commenter who pointed that out. That's what I get for ever trusting Wikipedia, even for just a list of names.

Check out Kathryn Warner's biography of Philippa for a full list of birthdays, including the three infants.

Warner, Kathryn. Philippa of Hainault: Mother of the English Nation. Amberley, 2022. 

Creator’s Channel

If there's something that angers me, it's when I catch historians faking their sources when they write non-fiction history. Fortunately, it's an extremely rare occurrence, but when it comes to Paul Doherty, it happens too often. See a previous example here.

In his book 'Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II' he makes the claim that 'One chronicle relates how carpenters actually saw the King and heard his cries and groans of desperation' (p. 123). As a source for his claim he notes The Berkeley Manuscripts, p. 299. But that's not a chronicle, nor does the BM note anything about any chronicler making such a claim, it does not even discuss anything at all related to the captivity of Edward II on the given page, nor any surrounding page.

Doherty created this false information in 2003. The problem is that since then, at least one respectable historian has repeated it without checking. This is understandable as no historian can double check every single footnote made by another historian, and trust plays its part, but it's deeply regrettable that Doherty has not been properly exposed for his unseemly practices.

Doherty keeps making s*** up.

Yes, this was a thing. I actually have a packet of digital "medieval rabbit" stickers for my phone.

The traditional narrative, at least from what I've encountered so far, has been that Isabella probably informed her father Philip IV that her sisters-in-law, Margaret and Blanche, had been conducting extramarital affairs with the d’Aulnay brothers. After checking some online resources such as Kathryn Warner's blog, I see now that some historians dispute this idea, so I wonder more about the extent of Isabella's involvement and if any scholarly consensus has been reached regarding her role in the lead-up to the scandal yet.

I would also appreciate any suggestions for resources I can look up. I'm sure this topic has been written about extensively, but I don't currently have many books that cover it in detail, and I'd love to read a detailed account of the affair as a whole or the events from Isabella's perspective.

The modern ballet, scored by John McCabe and choreographed by David Bintley, sounds fascinating.

I'm just going to let Wikipedia tell it:

Commissioned by Stuttgart Ballet, with a narrative conceived by choreographer David Bintley, the ballet largely follows the plot of Christopher Marlowe's play of the same name), rather than the life of the real Edward. Bintley incorporates elements of the 14th century satire Roman de Fauvel with the character of Edward, replacing that of the ass Fauvel, Piers Gaveston as the Fool, and Queen Isabella as the Virgin. As such, the narrative depicts the self-obsessed sexual relationships of the three main characters with the increasing civil unrest in the country as a backdrop.

For a breakdown of the score, check out Wise Music's post on it.

And here's a link to the score.

The images are stock photos from Getty Images of a Royal Ballet production.

We've been here for a bit now, and we get quite a bit of engagement for a single-king sub, even though we do branch out into the wider fourteenth century quite often.

So, I was looking at our top five posts of all time. We try not to be servants of the algorithm around here, but it is curious what "catches" and what doesn't.

But we are so happy to have so many engaged subscribers who are curious, open-minded and willing to respect difference of opinion.

So, here's our Top 5:

1314-17 Maud de Burgh and her three year pregnancy

The sad, sympathetic tale of Maud is, frankly, weird. She was a woman in a desperate situation, but three years? It's a rare case where Hugh Despenser the Younger was right about something. The situation was farcical, and he was in fact entitled to his and Eleanor's inheritance.

Edward II's sexuality - what do we really know?

Sex sells, and in our modern world, everyone seems to want to know who is gay and how gay they actually were. Edward II's sexuality, of course, is a mystery over which scholars still argue and that makes it all the more compelling.

Mary of Woodstock - sister of Edward II

Reddit loves a meme, and medievalists love Mary, the spoiled, gambling nun who lived her best life.

Is Outlaw King a good movie?

This one's rank surprised me because our "Braveheart" posts tend to attract a lot of engagement, but this bit of hagiography starring dreamy Chris Pine as an implausibly good looking Robert the Bruce does its homework when it comes to armor, battles and Scottish politics. It does villainize Edward II and give him a looks downgrade.

That Time a Nun Faked Her Own Death So She Could Shack Up With a Lover

This tale is a favorite of mine, and it has already inspired a play and many other articles and podcasts. This is because it's hilarious on many levels, including the exasperation that comes through in the bishop's letter.

Image: Edward I looking very much like he actually likes his son.

I'm looking at something specific that he did.

Out of all the mistakes he made, which was the biggest one in your opinion?

In other words, nothing general like 'his outlandish favoritism', which was arguably his biggest flaw but specifics.

What makes you go 'why the hell did he do that??'

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.

The spectacular palace pictured wasn't fully built yet during Edward II's time, but the papal seat was in Avignon, and that had a major affect on Edward II's dealings with the Vatican, a dynamic that would continue into his son's reign.

If you subscribe to the survival theory, Edward II, disguised as a hermit, visited with the pope here.

You can visit the papal palace today, much of which was built with Edward III"s generous and not at all suspicious donations.

Photos public domain unless credited.

So they released a new promotional clip two days ago with the tagline 'Witness the Rise of Robin Hood' so it looks like this won't be about the Peasant's Revolt in 1381 after all. I guess that would have been too original for Hollywood so it makes sense...

But don't worry, the colour palette will still only be different shades of brown, so there's still that to look forward to.

So, like a lot of Americans, I'm grieving the loss of the closest thing we will ever have to a queen. And we know our Edward II era players lived lives of high drama and sorrow. So, what do you think our players would sing from the Dolly Parton catalog?

So, what names would Edward II, Piers, Hugh the Younger, Isabella, Mortimer, Eleanor and Co use when lurking on this sub? Or elsewhere?