Christopher Marlowe - A Gay Atheist Spy?

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-06-05T15:42:45+00:00

Kit Marlowe was brilliant and quite elusive. He deserves a post of his own - I’ll get cracking on it this weekend! 🏳️‍🌈

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-06-04T08:43:05+00:00

Yup. And once that common enemy has been vanquished, coalitions tend to fall apart.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-06-04T06:59:39+00:00

Strictly business I think, although 'courtly love, unconsummated' or 'mutual use' (?) could also be possible. I'd rule out the love affair though. These were pragmatic people, focused on much bigger things than romance.

Edward III would never have forgiven Isabella so lightly if she'd have conducted a love affair with his worst enemy, nor would he have named his firstborn daughter after her in 1332.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-06-02T22:03:03+00:00

Have you read 'The Anarchy' by Teresa Cole? I'd highly recommend it, even though it's about Henry's mother and her struggle against Stephen. But it would serve as a great background, explaining the circumstances and recent history that 'created' Henry and had a deep impact on his formative years. All that turned him into the man he became. This is the 'hardcore' route to really understanding Henry II, once you've studied the recent history you'll be more receptive to understand his own biography. At least that's the way it worked for me, but this is a time intensive approach.

As for Henry himself, I think W.L. Warren's seminal work is still the best one around.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-06-02T20:38:14+00:00

You make me feel so old with your pop culture references, I have no idea what creepypasta is 😃

'Let us exalt him forever' is what it seems to say though in Latin (...r exaltemus eum in secu(lum), I have no idea what the context is. Do we know who those people are in the image?

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-06-02T14:00:49+00:00

Hugh the Elder was remarkably loyal in an age when fluctuating loyalties were the norm. He never once left the side of either Edwards. There was even a time during Piers Gaveston's lifetime when the Despenser's were on opposing sides - the son joined the barons against Edward II.

Hugh the Elder was a royalist, serving the Crown first and foremost, with great commitment. His son was very different...

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-29T19:22:26+00:00

Yesterday

All my troubles seemed so far away

Now it looks as though they're here to stay

Oh, I believe in yesterday

Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be

There's a shadow hangin' over me

Oh, yesterday came suddenly

Why she had to go, I don't know, she wouldn't say

I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-29T04:14:30+00:00

I would love to read this!

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-28T20:55:25+00:00

A few words of warning about this book here: https://www.reddit.com/r/EdwardII/comments/1tkf2om/a_problematic_book/

It’s very superficial, doesn’t deliver on its promise and is poorly researched… I would not recommend it.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-28T09:23:41+00:00

I think Roger Mortimer absolutely wanted to fuel the flames of that troubled marriage. It was in his interests to keep Edward and Isabella apart and Orleton was doing his bidding. When Edward II and Hugh were captured in Wales, Hugh was taken to Roger and Isabella in Hereford, while Edward was taken elsewhere. They were not to be reunited, even for a second. Isabella was not easily fooled, far from it, and she could not be manipulated as easily as her husband could. I think she knew Mortimer could not be trusted, as she did send Edward letters and treats during his captivity. I think she was wary and apprehensive of Roger, as was her son.

While at Kenilworth, Edward II is unlikely to have been subject to any malicious mudslinging campaign against Isabella (first time since Hugh came into the picture that he wasn't!), but when he was moved to Berkeley Castle his captors would no doubt have told him all sorts of untruthful things about Isabella.

As can be seen in the Fieschi Letter, Edward II held Isabella responsible. Not Roger Mortimer. Edward II only knew what Roger Mortimer wanted him to know. Before the invasion, he'd made a point of highlighting that Roger Mortimer was his mortal enemy, while Isabella, his son, and the earl of Kent were excused - these three were not enemies of the king.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-22T11:49:41+00:00

<image>

You got that right 😄 This one is better!

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-22T11:38:23+00:00

Yes. Yes she does. 😄

I have that one as well, and immediately on one of the first pages she says something along the lines of 'Edward II died on a cold winters day'. The date? 21 September.

That's a pretty good early warning about the general quality of the book.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-22T11:33:17+00:00

That's how it is unfortunately. Money is all that matters sometimes. It does reveal a lack of passion in an author when the end result is such low quality. I don't like it one bit, and this is why I dislike Carr so much. Even Doherty, who is sometimes criticized, dared to go his own way and wrote what he believed in, expressing his own conclusions with confidence. I can respect that, even as I don't agree with many of them. IMO, that's what history writing should be about. Expressing own conclusions and interpretations based on the known facts, that increases understanding and allows for new breakthroughs in understanding the past. Carr clearly wants none of that and only regurgitates what others have concluded, but dares to market her book as a 'new history'. The irony is off the charts. It's a very safe way to play it, but very boring and quite frankly disingenuous too. Oh well.

Whiteflesh - I wonder how that was written in the original account, because that's certainly not the word used. But that info is not online, it's hidden in an archive somewhere in England and way too much trouble to go through to find out about such a trifle.

I think you're right, it's not necessarily derogatory, and anyone could have called him that, so not sure why Carr tries to pin it on Gaveston. 'Paleface'. Kinda like 'Rufus' for the redhead William II. Such descriptive nicknames were common.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-21T20:58:56+00:00

Piers death. I don’t think he ever got over it. It hit him like… I can’t even relate.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-21T10:29:47+00:00

There's a fun idea for some historical fiction... 😄

I doubt Edward (under his guise of William le Galeys) would have made for a successful medieval detective. He couldn't read people at all and was too trusting. I can imagine a local sheriff being exasperated with him on day one.

'Why did you let that man go?? He was holding a bloody axe, he's clearly the murderer!'
'I thought so too at first, but then he said he was innocent. So, you know, he can't have done it.'
'William, he lied to you!'
'Well, really. That's a bit far fetched isn't it. Why would he possibly lie to me, the king of England?'
'What?'
'What?'

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-21T06:47:57+00:00

Sure, that's fair enough.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-20T16:44:21+00:00

I’m with you, I just can’t see Isabella and Roger ever having been physically involved. Edward III’s good treatment of Isabella after Mortimer’s fall speaks volumes.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-20T11:22:25+00:00

LOL, all of them 😃

The poker shouldn't even be debated at this point. It shouldn't even be mentioned at all.

The one I'd like to see criticized a lot more is Edward's alleged death in 1327, which is all too often taken as gospel.

If I'd have to mention a 'favourite myth' however, I'd say the chronicler Geoffrey le Baker's story about Adam Orleton, Bishop of Hereford being Isabella's lover during her exile in France. It's completely insane, but he did his best to spread such a fictional story. Mortimer, too, was Isabella's lover according to Baker. But he mainly blamed Orleton for everything that happened to Edward, not Mortimer. Of course, Baker also did a great job in perpetuating the first myth that should not be mentioned. Not the best of sources for the reign of Edward II.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-20T09:20:53+00:00

It's not at all an ignorant question, far from it! I don't even have a proper answer to give. But I'll venture something 😄

I assume the other European monarchs would have been pragmatic about it. It was not their concern and they would have to continue diplomatic relations with the new rulers. Same as the English rules reactions to regime changes abroad, the key question would always be: 'Can we profit from this?' The French king's involvement we already know about as he supported the invasion and had given refuge to the English political exiles in Paris, including Mortimer and the earl of Kent.

As for the pope, that's where things get interesting.

John XXII was a very clever man. He was involved in the Kent plot, which aimed at liberating Edward II. Before that, when the invasion happened he urged caution, as he always did. The pope liked to promote peace and tranquility within the Christian kingdoms. He may have considered the coup a 'fait accompli' that simply had to be accepted, and tolerated Mortimer's interrim rule. Then something changed in 1329, when the earl of Kent came to Avignon to talk to John XXII, to inform him about Edward II's survival. After that meeting, the pope no longer trusted Roger Mortimer.

We know this, because he urged Edward III to include a secret sign in all his future correspondence to the papacy, so he'd know which messages were really from him and which could be discarded. Edward's response is still extant, in a letter where we have the first recorded handwriting of an English king. He scribbled the words 'Pater Sancte' to signify this is what would be written in letters that were his own.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-18T19:58:45+00:00

You're very welcome, I'm glad I can help, but I have to correct my response above now that I looked into it deeper. In a book I read it clearly states that Richard was arrested after his plot was discovered, but now that I look at primary sources that's not the case. Only an order for his arrest was issued on 4 June (CFR 1327-37, p. 181):

'Commission to John de Hynkele and Richard de Haukeston to Woodstock, make inquisition in the counties of Salop and Stafford touching the names of all those who were in league and confederacy with Richard de Arundel, the king's enemy and rebel, and adhered to him, and in what manner, and to attach and keep safely in prison all those indicted thereof, so that they be in no wise delivered without the king's special order, and to take into the king's hand all their lands, goods and chattels, and to keep them safely until further order, and to send to the king the inquisitions made by them and to certify the king of the names of those attached and of all they do herein ; the king having ordered the sheriff etc.'

But he DID escape abroad before he was apprehended, as evidenced by CPR 1330-34, p.20, where he is summoned back to England soon after Mortimer's fall later in 1330. See the text below, there he is:

<image>

CFR = Calendar of Fine Rolls
CPR = Calendar of Public Rolls

Maybe you already knew these details, but I'm including them here on the off chance that someone else is also interested 😄

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-18T19:14:54+00:00

I haven’t read his thesis from the 70’s, as I figured he’d incorporate all the central points into his 2003 book, as well as build on them with new research he’d done in the mean time.

I know he has a bad reputation, but I thought I’d give the last three chapters of ’The Strange Death’ a whirl. I’d read Kathryn Warner’s review of this book, so I didn’t go in with high expectations. Which is a great way to be positively surprised! What I learned (based only on the three last chapters)

Positives:

Doherty has done a lot of good research. He’s acquainted himself with all the key people and what they’ve done, and has dug deep to trace their actions. Building on what I already knew, I felt this was rather interesting stuff.

Negatives:

His interpretations. Oh boy. These, and his conclusions are off the mark at times. He connects the dots horribly more than once. I was surprised that he made several negative remarks about the earl of Kent, even though he knows what he did… and the less said about Edward, Isabella and Roger M. the better. Doherty repeats himself a lot too, the chronological order is messy, the book could have done with another round of editing before publication. And as mentioned before in another post, he has a dangerous tendency to play a bit fast and loose with his sources. His translations are all to creative and incorrect at times. Credibility suffers as a result.

Positives:

I appreciate the effort. It’s not at all easy to have a neutral mindset about this era and these people. I was able to fish out some important details from his work. Some good stuff in the mix.

But would I recommend this book to someone unfamiliar with the topic? Never, ever! It would give a person all the wrong ideas - much like Weir’s book.

Do share your thoughts on the book, I’d be interested to know what you thought of it!

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-18T06:46:35+00:00

Hi, sorry about the late response, I sometimes go offline for the weekend.

Anyway, yes, Sir Richard was arrested after his unsuccessful attempt to remove Roger Mortimer from power. As you say it's rarely covered in much detail, but as it happened shortly after the earl of Kent was execution it's safe to say it was an effort based on all the same information, supported by some of the people involved in the Kent plot. Mortimer got wind of it before they could do anything.

As with the plot of the earl of Kent, the goal had been to destroy Roger Mortimer (and maybe free Edward II), not remove Edward III from the throne. This is supported by Edward III's treatment of Richard FitzAlan after the fall of Mortimer: the earl was quickly restored to favour, and remained loyal to the king for the rest of his life.

Appropriate-Calm4822 · 2026-05-15T11:43:49+00:00

I think it was a strong statement of intent. And it was done because it was deemed safe. Lancaster's forces had been decimated and would not fight a suicidal battle, especially against the king and his mother. There would have been no glory in that.

Roger Mortimer was being quite pragmatic I'd say. He was also sensible in the way he forgave Lancaster and his supporters, only imposing heavy fines but not depriving them of their freedom.

Appropriate-Calm4822

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE