predelection (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
predelection) wrote2023-04-03 03:47 am
predelection) wrote2023-04-03 03:47 am
Entry tags:
Edward II
Kathryn Warner is King Edward II of England's #1 fan and devotee and not only has she maintained a blog about him for 18 years (!!!) but she also wrote a really excellent biography about his life, Edward II: The Unconventional King. I just finished listening to the audiobook and I really enjoyed it! Reading a non-fiction history book felt like a blast from the past and an unexpected side-effect of reading this book was being reminded of why I fell in love with the field of history and feeling ye olde charms of yore seduce me again.
Overview:
Edward II just couldn't get enough of hot dudes. Was he gay? We'll never know for sure. But he for sure eagerly ceded royal power to non-royal male favorites like...all the time. Constantly. Because of love! Unfortunately for Edward, this made everyone else in England extremely jealous and buttface noblemen kept killing his boyfriends (Piers Gaveston) until one day Edward won the Boyfriend Wars and he and his evilest boyfriend yet (Hugh Despenser) instituted a despotic reign of terror until Edward's wife, Isabella of France, made an Anti-Boyfriend Super Alliance and deposed her husband so she could institute her own despotic reign of terror until her son (Edward III) overthrew her back. This saga generally oscillated between a lot of passive aggressive note passing and kidnapping and extreme murder-torture. Old timey people were really sick about it too. Say what you will about the modern justice system in the West, but at least now it's considered both morally reprehensible highly illegal to torture people to death. In Edward's times, public torture was the precursor to execution!!!! Thank god I live in the now times.
Warner fully embraced her fascination with Edward II by writing this book to defend him from "common knowledge" misconceptions about his life, character, and reign, but also acknowledged his many mistakes and character flaws. Her major primary sources were Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, letters, and "contemporary" biographies (i.e. were written ~100 years of Edward II's death). Her meticulous chronology and comparative interpretation of these documents made me feel like I was getting a holistic treatment at the history spa. She contextualized a lot of helpful details that would be missed by modern reader bias, such as kissing! Contemporary biographers complain bitterly how upon Edward's return from his marriage to Isabella in France and how he basically ran straight into Piers Gaveston's arms and kissed him all over. Modern readers (and many modern novelists dramatizing this reunion) are shocked and offended that a man would abandon his new wife (who was twelve btw) for the sweet kisses of another man during a public reunion; however, their contemporaries were shocked and offended that the king only had kisses for his beloved Piers. What about the other barons' kisses!? How come the king's royal kisses are being distributed so disproportionately!? It's so unfair! This is not how one should run a government!
Even though this was a pro-Edward biography and he didn't come across as a heinously evil person, he genuinely seemed like an awful king. I can see why his contemporaries were frustrated with him and how he eventually lost all his prestige and support. It made me reflect on my own non-existent reign. If a 23 year-old me suddenly became absolute monarch, would I be an effective ruler? If one of Edward's older brothers lived to be king before him, I think he would have been very happy living out his life as the brother of the king. Pretty much anyone who wasn't ambitious would have a great time being a wealthy and powerful private individual, but it's hard to separate what one "wants to happen" from what one "needs to have done". Edward wanted to lavish his love on Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despencer and indulge in his hobbies (which incidentally, were not making war on Scotland and France as a good Plantagenet king should). But what Edward needed to do was administer his government and defend the national pride of Norman England by establishing its preeminence over Scotland and Aquitaine. Edward's flaw was that he could never set aside his personal feelings to meet the fundamental requirements of his role as king. And I wonder if I could do that... I believe it's quite romantic that Edward never compromised for love, and quite tragic that that is what destroyed him!
Controversial Opinions:
The historical record states that Edward II died a prisoner in Berkeley Castle in 1327 under unknown circumstances. Christopher Marlowe's play, Edward II, popularized the idea that Edward was assassinated (by Satan!!!!) with a red-hot poker up the backside. However blatantly-untrue-yet-widely-believed this myth is, the location and date of Edward's death is considered uncontroversial. But Kathryn Warner argues that Edward may have left England in secret and lived out another 10 years of life under a fake identity in an Italian monastery. Just typing that out felt scandalously naughty. Imagine! The historical record is a lie! An elaborate scheme deceived the world for hundreds of years! It feels so wrong to even want to believe it, yet the theory is so enchanting... I loved this twist, it's not every day biographies publish surprise, alternative endings 696 years after their subject has "died"! For Edward II's health and happiness, I wish it was so.
Non-Edward Things:
Despite Edward II's modern-day reputation as an offensive caricature of an effeminate homosexual (what's wrong with being effeminate and/or gay I ask you?), every single primary source description of him describes him as tall, blond, and unusually muscular. He is basically Medieval Chris Hemsworth. Like Chris Hemsworth, Edward II was married to a woman. (Not the same woman, obviously.) Isabella of France was married to Edward for 19 years, until his death ("death!?") and remained ruler of England until her own deposition by their son, Edward III. Edward's marriage was an important part of his personal life and his reign as king. Though this biography was not about Isabella, she remained an important figure in the biographical narrative Warner constructed. Just as Warner sought to defend Edward from historical misconceptions, she also tried to defend the assumptions about Edward's sexuality and the state of his marriage. Just because a man has multiple passionate male-male relationships doesn't mean he can't also love his wife?? Just because a woman overthrows her husband and seizes his throne doesn't mean their marriage was all bad?? Come on, ladies. In fact, Warner presents some pretty compelling evidence that Edward and Isabella loved each other and valued their relationship. I also appreciated that Warner did not present an anti-Isabella agenda as her alternative to all the homophobic Edward-hate out there. She treated Edward and Isabella equally when evaluating the effectiveness of their political policy and I loved reading about an Isabella who was not a victim of her evil gay husband and learning about how she very much enjoyed exacting bloody revenge on her enemies, snitching on her cheating sisters-in-law, and draining the royal treasury to the last penny.
Ten Commandments For Writing About History And Discussing It Online by Kathryn Warner:
Warner also followed the lives of many other significant women in Edward's life and court, including his sisters and nieces. After finishing this biography, I wanted to keep reading about these women and their lives! Being a medieval noblewoman had its drawbacks (no choices in marriage partner, kidnappings, all the plague and warfare), but overall it seemed like a better deal than being a woman in some later periods of British history!?
Suggestions:
Do not transmigrate into 1300s Europe. Do not do it. Just say no to feudalism.
Overview:
Edward II just couldn't get enough of hot dudes. Was he gay? We'll never know for sure. But he for sure eagerly ceded royal power to non-royal male favorites like...all the time. Constantly. Because of love! Unfortunately for Edward, this made everyone else in England extremely jealous and buttface noblemen kept killing his boyfriends (Piers Gaveston) until one day Edward won the Boyfriend Wars and he and his evilest boyfriend yet (Hugh Despenser) instituted a despotic reign of terror until Edward's wife, Isabella of France, made an Anti-Boyfriend Super Alliance and deposed her husband so she could institute her own despotic reign of terror until her son (Edward III) overthrew her back. This saga generally oscillated between a lot of passive aggressive note passing and kidnapping and extreme murder-torture. Old timey people were really sick about it too. Say what you will about the modern justice system in the West, but at least now it's considered both morally reprehensible highly illegal to torture people to death. In Edward's times, public torture was the precursor to execution!!!! Thank god I live in the now times.
Warner fully embraced her fascination with Edward II by writing this book to defend him from "common knowledge" misconceptions about his life, character, and reign, but also acknowledged his many mistakes and character flaws. Her major primary sources were Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, letters, and "contemporary" biographies (i.e. were written ~100 years of Edward II's death). Her meticulous chronology and comparative interpretation of these documents made me feel like I was getting a holistic treatment at the history spa. She contextualized a lot of helpful details that would be missed by modern reader bias, such as kissing! Contemporary biographers complain bitterly how upon Edward's return from his marriage to Isabella in France and how he basically ran straight into Piers Gaveston's arms and kissed him all over. Modern readers (and many modern novelists dramatizing this reunion) are shocked and offended that a man would abandon his new wife (who was twelve btw) for the sweet kisses of another man during a public reunion; however, their contemporaries were shocked and offended that the king only had kisses for his beloved Piers. What about the other barons' kisses!? How come the king's royal kisses are being distributed so disproportionately!? It's so unfair! This is not how one should run a government!
Even though this was a pro-Edward biography and he didn't come across as a heinously evil person, he genuinely seemed like an awful king. I can see why his contemporaries were frustrated with him and how he eventually lost all his prestige and support. It made me reflect on my own non-existent reign. If a 23 year-old me suddenly became absolute monarch, would I be an effective ruler? If one of Edward's older brothers lived to be king before him, I think he would have been very happy living out his life as the brother of the king. Pretty much anyone who wasn't ambitious would have a great time being a wealthy and powerful private individual, but it's hard to separate what one "wants to happen" from what one "needs to have done". Edward wanted to lavish his love on Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despencer and indulge in his hobbies (which incidentally, were not making war on Scotland and France as a good Plantagenet king should). But what Edward needed to do was administer his government and defend the national pride of Norman England by establishing its preeminence over Scotland and Aquitaine. Edward's flaw was that he could never set aside his personal feelings to meet the fundamental requirements of his role as king. And I wonder if I could do that... I believe it's quite romantic that Edward never compromised for love, and quite tragic that that is what destroyed him!
Controversial Opinions:
The historical record states that Edward II died a prisoner in Berkeley Castle in 1327 under unknown circumstances. Christopher Marlowe's play, Edward II, popularized the idea that Edward was assassinated (by Satan!!!!) with a red-hot poker up the backside. However blatantly-untrue-yet-widely-believed this myth is, the location and date of Edward's death is considered uncontroversial. But Kathryn Warner argues that Edward may have left England in secret and lived out another 10 years of life under a fake identity in an Italian monastery. Just typing that out felt scandalously naughty. Imagine! The historical record is a lie! An elaborate scheme deceived the world for hundreds of years! It feels so wrong to even want to believe it, yet the theory is so enchanting... I loved this twist, it's not every day biographies publish surprise, alternative endings 696 years after their subject has "died"! For Edward II's health and happiness, I wish it was so.
Non-Edward Things:
Despite Edward II's modern-day reputation as an offensive caricature of an effeminate homosexual (what's wrong with being effeminate and/or gay I ask you?), every single primary source description of him describes him as tall, blond, and unusually muscular. He is basically Medieval Chris Hemsworth. Like Chris Hemsworth, Edward II was married to a woman. (Not the same woman, obviously.) Isabella of France was married to Edward for 19 years, until his death ("death!?") and remained ruler of England until her own deposition by their son, Edward III. Edward's marriage was an important part of his personal life and his reign as king. Though this biography was not about Isabella, she remained an important figure in the biographical narrative Warner constructed. Just as Warner sought to defend Edward from historical misconceptions, she also tried to defend the assumptions about Edward's sexuality and the state of his marriage. Just because a man has multiple passionate male-male relationships doesn't mean he can't also love his wife?? Just because a woman overthrows her husband and seizes his throne doesn't mean their marriage was all bad?? Come on, ladies. In fact, Warner presents some pretty compelling evidence that Edward and Isabella loved each other and valued their relationship. I also appreciated that Warner did not present an anti-Isabella agenda as her alternative to all the homophobic Edward-hate out there. She treated Edward and Isabella equally when evaluating the effectiveness of their political policy and I loved reading about an Isabella who was not a victim of her evil gay husband and learning about how she very much enjoyed exacting bloody revenge on her enemies, snitching on her cheating sisters-in-law, and draining the royal treasury to the last penny.
Ten Commandments For Writing About History And Discussing It Online by Kathryn Warner:
9) You shall remember that depicting women as all of a sudden no longer possessing their own agency, becoming the proverbial "helpless pawns" and coming under the total control of nasty unscrupulous men whenever they do things you don't approve of, when two pages earlier you were applauding their independence of action and thought as they did noble and good things, is as patronising and paternalistic as the 'sexual prejudices' of previous centuries you're decrying. Repeat to yourself until it sinks in: Adult women are responsible for their own actions, good or bad, just as much as men are.
Warner also followed the lives of many other significant women in Edward's life and court, including his sisters and nieces. After finishing this biography, I wanted to keep reading about these women and their lives! Being a medieval noblewoman had its drawbacks (no choices in marriage partner, kidnappings, all the plague and warfare), but overall it seemed like a better deal than being a woman in some later periods of British history!?
Suggestions:
Do not transmigrate into 1300s Europe. Do not do it. Just say no to feudalism.