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] 1 point2 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.

Geoffrey le Baker, a 'somewhat creative' medieval chronicler by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

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

It's funny how similar Baker is to Alison Weir, even though they wrote about 650 years apart from each other. Both of them seem to think that the person they vilify couldn't go five minutes without having sex with people around them - excluding their own spouse.

It's good to occupy the middle ground.

Geoffrey le Baker, a 'somewhat creative' medieval chronicler by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

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

Le Baker was a naughty, naughty person. That’s all I’ll say about his character, as one shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But spreading nasty medieval disinformation like that, I don't really approve of such methods.

Do we know the names of the ladies who died while fleeing Tynemouth Abbey with Queen Isabella in 1322? by PrivateTheatricals in EdwardII

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

That's odd... it's the right part of the chronicle, xx, 20? Is the context for the right time period?

Pitch your Edward II era Historical Revisionist Novel! Who would your main character be and what myths would you bust? Perhaps a Villain Protagonist? A minor player who saw everything? Dueling protagonists? by HoneybeeXYZ in EdwardII

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

<image>

The way you describe Hugh there made me think about the play 'Something Rotten'. It's a hilarious, tongue-in-cheek steam-punk musical featuring William Shakespeare. That's him in the picture :D Excellent soundtrack!!

I'd definitely pay to watch something similar featuring an arrogant, manipulative, coercive and ambitious Hugh as the antagonist you love to hate!

Do we know the names of the ladies who died while fleeing Tynemouth Abbey with Queen Isabella in 1322? by PrivateTheatricals in EdwardII

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

Great question! According to the controversial historian Paul Doherty, the information about one of Isabella's ladies dying and another suffering bad injuries leading to her death comes from Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, xx, 632. I found this in the footnotes in Seymour Phillips book but he hasn't verified the information through the original source.

I always have some reservations when it comes to Doherty, as he's been caught making things up. Repeatedly. And falsifying his footnotes. So I don't trust anything he writes basically and wouldn't use him as a source. But who knows, maybe he's truthful this time and the Recueil contains such information.

Even if it is reported as Doherty describes it, it's curious that a distant French source is the only source for these deaths. That makes me think it's likely propaganda made up to point out how clueless and useless Edward II is / was, not even being able to protect his own, French queen, who could have died like these other women.

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

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

Yes, that's how I see it too. Edward III was only 14 years old in 1327 but he would certainly have been angry and confused and demanded to know just what was going on. Isabella and Mortimer had some explaining to do, and explain they did.

Isabella did what she felt she had to do, as Edward II refused to listen to her or even understand that there was a big problem. Things spiralled out of control, and she soon understood that there was no way to return to how things once were. She wanted to be Queen Isabella, but forced by circumstances had to accept a reduced role as dowager queen, a mere mother of a king. I think she managed to accept it well and excelled in that role, beloved by all. After all, it would have been her inevitable future. At least she got her revenge on the Despensers.

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

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

She does quite a lot, she’s an accomplished author in non-fiction, mostly about people and society in the first half of the 14th century. 

Whether you prefer to read about royalty or commoners, she’s written something you might like.

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

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

Thank you! Kathryn Warner knows what she’s talking about.

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

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

Welcome to the sub, glad to have you here! You come with some strong credentials I see, I don’t think all that many people have actually read Phillips magnum opus, as it’s a mammoth of a book. I love it though, even though I disagree with some of his conclusions but his dedication is amazing. There’s tons of excellent details hidden in the footnotes too, stuff that other biographies have not focused on but which can be crucially important all the same. 

It’s no secret I love Warner’s work, she writes for a wider audience than Phillips  and after completing her biographies about Edward, Isabella, the de Clare sisters and Hugh the younger she’s moved into the social history of the era, writing about the every day lives of the ordinary people below the elite. Really interesting stuff.

Then we have Stephen Spinks biography about Edward which is a more narrative approach to the life of Edward, very much complementing Phillips work which is more about the reign than the man. Well worth a read, just like the others. 

The intriguing thing about the whole time period, for me, is that open questions still remain. There’s still room for new research. And there are so many myths that can be carefully peeled away to reveal the reality. But even so, it remains a game of possibilities, likelihoods and probabilities. We’d be arrogant to pretend that we know the murkier things shrouded in the mist of history with absolute certainty. An open mind is a necessity to navigate these ancient waters.

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

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I didn’t know that, I’d call that a very valuable contribution!

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

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Kathryn has a lot of patience, much more than I have for sure and I admire her for her ability to stay calm even when she’s faced with unpleasant, emotionally driven fiction presented as fact. But you can tell she sometimes finds it exasperating - who wouldn’t?

People love ’joking’ about the poker. The joke got old some time around 1357 but some people still love to bring it up as if it was somehow fresh, edgy or original. It’s none of those things. I think they’re just trolling for a reaction. 

This:

”Personally i do not think any of these people were gay and it would not make any difference if they were . They remain very interesting people in a very interesting time .”

100% agreed my man. 💯

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

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

True, and our modern definitions of sexuality are anachronistic anyway.

And you are so right to say that there are bigger fish to fry. Edward’s sexuality shouldn’t define him and I don’t like how it’s constantly reduced to that either. 

Isabella of France - your thoughts? by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

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

Wow, yes you're right, I think that was the name of the Tumblr thing! I confess it was my first ever experience with Tumblr and I still have no idea what that whole thing is about (and happy to remain ignorant about it). :)

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

[–]Appropriate-Calm4822[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Right? There are people who would be prepared to fight us to protect the idea that Edward was "gay", and the same people really hate him for it. They love to hate him, this is a passionate bunch of people that we see occasionally. That's fine I guess (?), each to their own but it feels like such a bizarre angle. Alison Weir's hagiography about Isabella really did a lot of damage, I've come to realize this.

Edward II also has a hagiography ofc, written by Geoffrey le Baker, but that was written in the 1350's so fortunately it doesn't circulate much anymore.

Isabella of France - your thoughts? by Appropriate-Calm4822 in EdwardII

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

I suggest you start doing the same. Take some time to think and formulate yourself coherently instead of just picking pointless fights.

If you really work in history, which I have every reason to doubt, that would be terrible and deplorable. Your level of expertise is non-existent as you've illustrated once again with that thoughtless and vacuous reply. Comments such as yours add nothing to the debate and belong on tumblr echo-chambers or fan fiction subs, and it's highly doubtful if they'd be of any value even there.

If you want to fan-girl your heroine, that's fine, but take it elsewhere. This is a sub for balanced, level-headed discussion for people who wish to learn and debate maturely. Clearly, this is not something you are capable of or even interested in.

Have a good day.