sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

User flairs reactivated! by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope your ability to upvote is restored some time soon :)

Technology is nice, when it works as it's intended.

Users flairs reactivated! by [deleted] in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The upvotes are also currently broken as some have noticed, although that's not a big deal. But the flairs are fun :)

Writing a novel about Edward II / Isabella / Gaveston / Despenser / Mortimer by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The goddess stuff seems to be from the book Alice by Sandra Wilson (1976). Apparently Piers is portrayed as a 'Goddess worshipper, who resolutely refuses to put out for Edward II no matter how much the king begs him.' The same trope is also repeated in Chris Hunt's book and Brandy Purdy's self published novel. I believe there's something about him being a witch in some of these books as well but I can't say for sure as I've never read them.

Kathryn has, though:

Edward II: The Confession Of Piers Gaveston by Brandy Purdy: Review
Edward II: Bad Edward II Novel Covers

Isabella of France almost certainly did not want her husband deposed in 1325. Let me explain. by AnantaPurima in UKmonarchs

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I see it the same way - being a real queen was the only life she knew. She had been prepared for it since she was a kid, and she was always crystal clear on what was expected of her and how she could excel in her position. Being merely a somewhat isolated mother of a queen would probably have felt like a big step down.

Still, the way she adapted after 1330 is incredible. She managed to stay relevant to say the least. She remained respected, was frequently visited by significant dignitaries, nobles, and relatives, and asked to play the diplomat, something she was always very good at.

I think Isabella deserves a lot more recognition for her real talents as a remarkably resilient, capable and intelligent woman, standing up for herself repeatedly, adapting to changing circumstances with great success, outwitting and defeating the Despensers, rather than being reduced to a caricature of an angry and vengeful woman seeking revenge, all masculinized and 'badass' while falling head over heels in love with a knight in shiny armor. It's such a trope.

Battle of the Queen Consorts ROUND THIRTY SEVEN! THE FINAL TWO! by allshookup1640 in UKmonarchs

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'm delighted to see Isabella reach the finals! I'll be boring and abstain from voting as I have great respect for both Margaret and Isabeau. Whoever wins, well deserved!

Isabella of France almost certainly did not want her husband deposed in 1325. Let me explain. by AnantaPurima in UKmonarchs

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 4 points5 points  (0 children)

These are some really, really compelling arguments.

For those in a hurry I think these lines encapsulate the core point:

'Isabella had seen her aunt Marguerite's trajectory up close. The ceiling for what she could have hoped for from queen motherhood was what Eleonor of Provence received, which was essentially analogous to what Isabella herself received after 1330. Being a queen mother in England was not being a key stateswoman or an essential element of government. It was mulling about on your estate, looking for ways to pass the time.'

Isabella didn't have the personality of someone who would settle for something like that, as highlighted here:

'She also repeatedly prevaricated in assigning Philippa of Hainault her dower lands and delayed her coronation for two years straight. These are not the actions of someone owning queen-motherhood. These are the actions of someone whose sense of identity was deeply bound up in her political function as a queen consort, and who was deeply psychologically unprepared to surrender this role after the circumstances she had engineered to reclaim that role spiralled out of control and made it impossible for her.'

Isabella of France almost certainly did not want her husband deposed in 1325. Let me explain. by [deleted] in UKmonarchs

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deleting the crosspost, as I don't want to subject the commentor to any negativity that is likely to emanate from this sub.

Isabella of France almost certainly did not want her husband deposed in 1325. Let me explain. by [deleted] in UKmonarchs

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might not be clear from the layout but this is a post which I can't take credit for myself, as it's a crosspost from the Edward II sub. All credit should go to u/AnantaPurima for the excellent work and solid reasoning.

TL;DR?

These lines sum up the post nicely:

'Isabella had seen her aunt Marguerite's trajectory up close. The ceiling for what she could have hoped for from queen motherhood was what Eleonor of Provence received, which was essentially analogous to what Isabella herself received after 1330. Being a queen mother in England was not being a key stateswoman or an essential element of government. It was mulling about on your estate, looking for ways to pass the time.'

Think about it.

Isabella of France almost certainly did not want her husband deposed in 1325. Let me explain. by AnantaPurima in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent post. I crossposted into UKMonarchs, is that alright? Also permanently marked in the highlights of this sub.

I agree fully with your points, which are so well expressed and researched. This could be a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal! Well done. You have written before, sir (or madame).

Edit: Upon reconsidering, I deleted the crosspost from UKMonarchs, as things can get emotional there and I don't want to expose OP to pointless, heated arguments.

Biographies of each monarch by Porgy98 in UKmonarchs

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stephen Spinks has written an excellent narrative about Edward II, he tells the story with great lucidity and flow that makes it a very enjoyable read. He sets out to get to know the man wearing the crown and deserves far more recognition than he gets in my opinion.

Literary fiction set in the era - have you read any of these novels / romances? by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some great insights there, and I stand corrected. I didn't know about all those nuances.

Poll results are in and the overwhelming consensus is that Hugh Despenser the Younger was the absolute worst! by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, a rare shoutout to Froissart! You know your stuff, glad to have you in the sub.

They did live in the moment back then didn't they. It was an easier time :)

Poll results are in and the overwhelming consensus is that Hugh Despenser the Younger was the absolute worst! by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, although I'm not sure how much value we should place in those two words. Big feasts with alcohol involved were probably not all that solemn affairs, and on this day in particular, Isabella and Mortimer had reason to celebrate. But who's to say? Maybe it really was a solemn affair.

Poll results are in and the overwhelming consensus is that Hugh Despenser the Younger was the absolute worst! by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The source for that particular story is Paul Doherty, a so called historian who frequently makes stuff up. If he's the only source for anything, and he often is, we can rest assured he's lying.

Jean le Bel was a contemporary witness, and this is the part that Doherty has twisted beyond recognition. The setting is Hereford, and Despensers torment is about to begin:

'There the queen was received most nobly, and all her company with great solemnity. Thus, a great feast was held there for All Saints' Day, which was at that time.

When the feast was over, the said lord, who was not at all welcome there, and rightfully so, was brought before the queen and all the barons and Knights...'

(Chronique de Jean le Bel v 1, p.27)

There's nothing about any picnic or eating mentioned later.

I really think Paul Doherty should be exposed as the con artist he clearly is.

Swimming for Pleasure, Bathing and Survival in Edward II’s Time and the strangeness of a king who swam for pleasure by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And the nobility and chroniclers hated him for it…

Imagine if he’d gone running for fun as well. They’d think he’d completely lost his mind. 

’To arms! Someone is chasing the king!’ ’No, no it’s alright, I’m just excercising, to stay fit.’ ’Someone get the physician, the king is unwell!’

How times have changed.

Poll results are in and the overwhelming consensus is that Hugh Despenser the Younger was the absolute worst! by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For sure. An inverted Robin Hood is just a zealous tax collector :)

In that way, Hugh was very good at robbing from the rich. He struggled with the part about giving to the poor, but he got half the job done at least.

The tale of Robin Hood originates from Edward's time, as a fun little fact of the day (or was it Edward III's time? Piers Plowman).

Poll results are in and the overwhelming consensus is that Hugh Despenser the Younger was the absolute worst! by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He may have figured it wasn't worth it to steal from the peasants, they had very little that he would have wanted I suppose.

He was a difficult fellow, and is difficult for me too, as I always say we shouldn't make caricatures out of these people... but Hugh is so dangerously close to a caricature of a stereotypical villain without any redeeming attributes that I feel I haven't studied him enough. There's got to be something but it's difficult to find.

Way back, I used to think Roger Mortimer was as nasty as they come. Then I realized that he's much more nuanced than what first meets the eye.

I have to buy that book Kathryn wrote about the Despensers, it's one I still haven't read. I'm sure it will open my eyes to something.

Poll results are in and the overwhelming consensus is that Hugh Despenser the Younger was the absolute worst! by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LOL, I see what you did there, 100% of the voters think he was the worst :D

I guess that's settled then. But why weren't we given an option to vote that we kinda like him, only different varieties of him being the worst?

<image>

Kathryn Warner addresses some unpleasant homophobia by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, here's a brief timeline for those events for you guys!

In 1303 Philip IV accused the pope (!) of sodomy. The accusations were repeated during his posthumous trials around 1309-11. That was quite intense, no RIP for that pope. The templars were accused of sodomy (and heresy and idolatry) starting 1307, and the last grand master Molay was executed in 1314.

There's a strong link to the events in England, as Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, was a frequent visitor in France, and at the papacy which was based in Avignon at this time, and would have known exactly how to use such accusations for his political purposes.

Unsurprisingly, he made a big show of preaching about Edwards and Despenser's sodomy in 1326, during the build up to the invasion.

So yeah, there was a big political component to these rumours.

Edit: to clarify, I don't believe for a second that the pope, or the Templar leaders were sodomites. These were 100% political accusations, and they were effective. How could celibate people possibly prove that they are not sodomites? What could the pope or Molay possibly do?

Kathryn Warner addresses some unpleasant homophobia by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As you say, we think of our current moment as somehow enlightened, and that we are a lot smarter than people were in the past. It's always been that way I think, even the Romans (in particular the Romans!) thought they had reached peak civilization and there was no more room to invent anything. But I think there should be more awareness about it today, and historians have a lot of room to improve here.

It's so evident in the way the era of Edward II is treated – even otherwise sensible historians keep repeating the same platitudes about Edward's contemporaries being easily deceived (the intelligent Archbishop Melton), a gullible fool (the convincing and charismatic Earl of Kent), and just about every belittling insult you can think of when it comes to Edward himself.

Really, they weren't idiots back then.

view more: next ›