![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is there any particular reason you removed all references to Edward II's homosexuality from his page? Although I am not an expert on this, it seems there's enough evidence that it at least warrents a mention.
Basil Fawlty 06:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Whoever", not "whomever". "Are" is a copulative verb and both arguments take the nominative. You made the same mistake in your next post below. By the way, if there exist persons who were then gay, I'd say the poor things are awfully old. And as for your statement that "it's a long considered academic fact that Edward II was gay," I think that "long considered academic fact" part sits within some very limited knowledge on your part. Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think anyone considered themselves to be, or were considered to be, gay at that time. Slrubenstein
I don't think there's much doubt that Edward II had a homosexual relationship with Piers Gaveston, and in all likelihood, the Younger Despenser. Although not explicitly stated by chroniclers, they said of Edward and Gaveston "the King is lovesick for his minion." Adam of Orleton denounced the King as a "tyrant and a sodomite", following the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer. Froissart noted of the Younger Despenser "He was a sodomite, even it is said, with the King." Does that make him gay, as we would see it? I don't know. He had at least five children, and clearly enjoyed sexual relations with women. Perhaps that makes him bisexual in our terms.
Sean Fear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.11.71 ( talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
a small aside: is the story about Edward's allegedly gay lover being executed after his private parts were burnt in front of him, true?? i just read it on the internet. it's crazy what man will do to man.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.110.89.98 ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2004 (UTC).
Yes, it is true. Thats one version of the "drawn" bit of "hung, drawn, and quartered". CheeseDreams 16:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The simple fact that a google search of the term Edward II will bring up mostly sites suggesting he was homosexual requires it be addressed in the opening paragraph. If you have a problem with this perception, put it under a subheading of "Arguments over sexuality" and provide both POVs on the issue, but the fact that the public (rightly or wrongly) percieves it to be so requires that it be mentioned.
Suicidal mongoose 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for pity's sake, mongoose, people on the web will say anything they damn well please. Al Gore is accused of claiming he invented the internet, though he never quite made that claim. George Bush is accused of "being AWOL" though had he actually been AWOL he'd have spent years in jail. Doesn't matter whether the claims are true, just keep saying something over and over, and sooner or later some mongoose is going to assert that because it was said so much, it must be true! Remember that claiming historical figures were gay has become the activists' favorite pastime; of course you're going to find a gazillion websites claiming it as true. Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I've long doubted the truth of the "hot poker story"; it bears too much resemblence to the death of Edward's brother-in-law, Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford. Humphrey was speared through the anus while fighting on a drawbridge by a pikeman hidden under the drawbridge. It's my suspicion that some confusion arose, or the story was deliberately changed, so the victim changed from the Earl of Hereford to the King of England for a more "ironic" death.
When does the "hot poker" story first arise? Any contemporary or near-contemporary reports?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mississippienne ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 March 2005 (UTC).
John Trevisa wasn't even born until about 1342 and lived until 1402. He didn't become a chaplain at Berkeley until the late 1370s, half a century after Edward II's murder - hardly a contemporary source! The Thomas Berkeley who was Lord of Berkeley then was the *grandson* of the Thomas, Lord Berkeley who was Edward II's custodian, and was born in 1353. And Higden was writing in the 1340s, not 1326/27 - that date doesn't refer to when he was writing, but the time he was writing about. AlianoreD 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I took out the Thomas de la Moore quote, as it gives no source. Also, I notice the contributor said de la Moore's account was not published till after 1352(?) when the stub on Thomas De la Moore says he died sometime after 1347. At any rate, you need to cite the source, whatever it is. If someone wants to put in the Bingham and Doherty citations as mentioned above, they should do so. 11 Arlington ( talk) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This section is written in a POV manner without sources. It needs complete rewriting and proper sourcing to be of encyclopædic standard. FearÉIREANN 20:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tried not to give a POV, but the variance between the letter and previously accepted history has to be explained. If you want sources, I have pasted the text of Fieschi letter below. The letter was discovered by a French archivist in the binding of an official register dated 1368 which had been the property of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne, and was preserved in the Archives Departmentales d'Herault at Montpelier. It is still there today. The letter has been tested and is not a later forgery. Fieschi is a well known historical figure. He had several livings in England and knew the country though the letter shows a confusion between the rank of a knight and that of a lord. The following is a faithful translation from the original Latin. I suggest that you read the letter and then send me your comments about where the article is faulty. Could it be that your concern is that the letter differs from what you thought you knew?
In the name of the Lord, amen
Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I have taken care to be known to Your Highness.
First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the coast. There he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock, and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led him to Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places. And there, many people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you were crowned at the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him, after some little time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Barford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases you, I shall give you my clothes that you may better be able to escape.' Then, wearing the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison. And when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed. And, having got the keys out of the door, he opened it and went out, with his keeper. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, and fearing the indignation of the Queen, for fear of their lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in a chest, his heart having been extracted and maliciously presented to the Queen, as if they were the heart and body of your father; and, as the body of the King, the said porter was buried at Gloucester. Afer he had escaped from the prison of the aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together with his companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the castellan of the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys.
Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do, crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen days. Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been considered, and after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of devotion, he might see the [shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving Cologne, he crossed over Germany and headed for Milan in Lombardy.
In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo], in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.
Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant.
JMcC
09:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
FearÉIREANN has failed to respond to two messages asking about his doubts about factual accuracy. It is only possible to conclude that this user has no grounds for his objection. I have therefore removed the factual accuracy warning from this section.
JMcC
09:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel there should be some mention in the article about the belief that he was not killed and infact escapted. See the Letter section above. There is a fair amount of popular belief in this and even some scholars have argued this. Citing such things as the archetecutre at the hermitage that he supposedly lived out his life at, the above letter, and the manner which his body was displayed for viewing after his "death". There is also a fairly good argument that goes to debunking this, I have the articles somewhere but I have to find them so I don't want to add them myself just yet. If someone can remember them would you please add them. If the "hot-poker" story is included, which it should be since it is part of the mythology of Edward II, his supposed survival should be as well.
I also vaugley remember reading somewhere that Edward III supposedly met his father at some point later in his life but had no idea it was him as he was dressed as a hermit and did not let his son know. Anybody else remember anything like this? Or is this something I have come up with from something else? Some help with these things would be appreciated. FubarDac 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read a few times that another victim was used and Edward was smuggled out of the country to Lombardy and spent the rest of his life as a hermit. Maybe worth adding to the main article with a credible source? Lugnuts 18:31, 31 July 2006
I've read, in the recent biography of Roger Mortimer, that he was smuggled to Corfe and kept prisoner there. In relation to the article, that Edward III pressed charges against Roger over the death of his father, which is used to signify that Edward II was in fact dead, can be disputed by the same logic as to why Roger kept Edward II alive. Roger needed an extra hold over the young king, instead of just his mother, so the king was kept alive, after his supposed death, to allow the option that he might return. If Edward III denied his father's death, there might be a call from some of the Lords and Earls to reinstate his throne, thereby forcing the young Edward to abdicate. Concerning the tomb and hearse used during Edward II's burial, only a small number of people would have known about Edward II survival, so the abbots, clerks and people in charge of the funeral would not have known, and acted in good faith, and would have done the same if the king were dead, and this was his actual funeral. The chronicles saying that Edward was killed, were written in Northern England, the home of the Earl of Lancaster, an opponent of the Mortimer, and there by could be propaganda against Roger. The Earl of Kent was executed in 1330 for treason, ammounting to trying to rescue Edward II from prison, this was 3 years after the 'death' of Edward. Another piece of evidence was that Thomas de Berkeley, being tried alongside Roger in Parliament, pleaded that he couldn't have killed EdwardII because he was still alive. I cannot find sources for this apart from 'The Greatest Traitor', a biography of Roger Mortimer, sympathtic to his cause, and it's included bibliography.
What Thomas Berkeley said to Parliament was "nec unquam scivit de morta sua usque in presenti parliamento ipso" - "that he never even knew about that [Edward II's] death until the present Parliament". What exactly he meant by that is a matter for speculation. He didn't explicitly claim that Edward II was still alive. AlianoreD 07:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about this section. Putting numerous sections in italics doesn't make it more believable, just makes it look like someone is over-wrought. I'm fine with presenting an argument that Edward II may have escaped, but not at accepting it at face value on the basis of ONE person's books.
Could someone who is knowledgeable enough to address this take a look at it and try to present some balance? I can come up with a half-dozen counter-arguments easily: these were people who were accustomed to killing so why would they have allowed someone as dangerous as Edward II to live? Would the people who have seen his body have been that easily fooled? Why did no one ever mention having made effigies to fake his body? If he was kept prisoner for 14 years, how did they manage to keep this quite that secret? NO ONE ever let it slip? The Earl of Kent being executed doesn't prove that Edward II was still alive, only that the Earl may have thought that he was.
I'm skeptical, but it could have happened that way. But a better discussion of the subject needs to be made. What is there now comes across as at best a one-sided rant, in my opinion.
71.236.155.174 ( talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The sections on the Despensers needs to be rewritten as it takes a tone that makes them sound like they were friends of the people when historical research shows the greatest abuses came during thier time in power. I believe at least one historian has pointed out that the barons and the commoners would have gladly taken Gaveston over them. FubarDac 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There's already a lot of speculation that Edward II survived the alleged assassination, but even then, the date was and is still uncertain.
Why, then, is there a "Sept 21 1327" as if carved in stone, inalterable? I've tried several times to add a "?" but to no avail.→ R Young { yakł talk} 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Where has the Fieschi letter gone? There don't seem to be any references to it in the article, and the death of Edward, poker and all, seems to be described as certain (despite the fact that historians today generally accept that that story is hardly based on eyewitness accounts). I'm sure I remember it being here a few months ago, and now it seems to have vanished. So where is it? Surely something so highly relevant to Edward should be mentioned there? Accordingly, unless someone can give me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be there, I am going to elaborate upon the doubts surrounding Edward's death, and add a section regarding the letter (using 'The Greatest Traitor', by Ian Mortimer). Michaelsanders 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I added this because I think the new sections of the article need some Wiki links. I realise it's "work in progress", of course. And rew D alby 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing about this period in British history, but it looks like the legacy of this figure is disputed. I can't help but noticing that we have a very long article without any inline references. If this person is disputed then inline referencing will be required. I don't understand why a blog that "wishes to save the reputation of a beloved monarch" (or something along those lines) is listed as a source. This article needs solid referencing from printed works. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Alison Weir (2005)in Isabella, She Wolf of France; Queen of England, makes a persuasive argument that Edward survived an attempt on his life on 21 September 1327 by adherents of Roger Mortimer and subsequently fled to Italy via Corfe and the continent. She argues that Edward's custodians covered up his escape with a substituted body to avoid the consequences of their own incompetence. She cites several sources as evidence for this argument including the Fieschi letter, which she also quotes in full and analyses in the context of other evidence.
The Fieschi letter has never been discredited,although there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. None of these undermine its authenticity however. Fieschi himself was a clergyman, a distant relative of Edward II,and a friend of Edward III's tutor, who had lived in England and who had met Edward II. He was therefore sure to have recognised the King when he saw him in Italy. Weir estimates that given the length of time it would have taken for Edward to travel to Italy as an individual without the benefit of his position, and the length of time the letter says Edward spent in the hermitages in Italy, then it is likely that Edward II died c.1337 (although the margin of error is quite high). The Fieschi letter should certainly be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, since it is germane to any discussion of Edward II's life and death.
21 September 1327 is commonly cited as the date of Edward's death/escape because Isabella was 130 miles away from Berkeley, where Edward was held, when she was informed of his death during the night of 23 September (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, Public Record Office; Haines: Edwardus Redividus). This is about how long it would have taken a messenger to travel from Berkeley to Lincoln, where the Queen was staying. One source (the Berkeley accounts) says that a messenger arrived in Lincoln on 28 September. This is likely to be an error and should be 23 September, but it is enough to raise a question mark about the date of Edward II's death/escape.
Edward's postulated homosexuality is relevant in that it partially explains his close associations with Gaveston and le Despenser at the expense of his wife and the English magnates and the trouble those relationships subsquently brought down on his head. The life and death of Edward II is important for the precedents it established in British law and government, not for its spurious effects on the sexual politics of the 21st century.
The death by red hot poker is an obvious fiction since it would cause so much pain that the victim would be screaming for days, before succumbing to shock and peritonitis. Hardly, therefore, a method of assassination that would be chosen by conspirators trying to discreetly get rid of a deposed king. Nor is it consistent with the considerate treatment Edward received while he was a prisoner. Moreover, as previous correspondents have noted on this page, there are no contemporary sources that support this story. Some reasonably contemporary sources assert that he was either suffocated or poisoned (much more plausible). R0byn8 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The wiki article on Edward I has a more complete (and probably more balanced) version of his death than that dealt with here. Stories given here are discounted as improbable in the Edward I page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.46.52 ( talk) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Edward II wiki article, the writer states that Edward I selected Piers Gaveston as an companion to his son in 1298. However, in the Piers Gaveston wikipedia article, the date is cited as 1300. Does anyone have information on the actual date, or is their an academic debate regarding the date?
Article also freqently uses the stock phrase "some people" when discussing controversial items such as Edward's homosexuality (I think we also need to use care in seperating homosexuality from homosexual behavior, so as not to project contemporary readings onto Edward's sexual behavior). It would be beneficial to have some idea of who "some people" are and what their claims are.
I'm going to clean up the article for general awkward sentence structure, poor punctuation and excessive clausation. -- Madnessandcivilization 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
sORRY TO INTERUPT AGAIN ! But there are two things people must get clear about these matters.Please understand that intense emotional even physically affectionate relationships between men do not indicate homosexuality in the modern sense.Until less than a hundred years ago, women were regarded as children and many men found it impossible to have the deep total mental relationship with them that they had with men.There has for example been talk about Abraham Lincoln sharing his bed with a male friend..This is an example of this.It has nothing to do with any feelings of homosexual desire except in the widest sense which is that males are tribal pack animals who hunt and fight together and who therefore need to have emotional feelings that drive them to help and come to the aid of other men.Homosexual desire in the modern sense has no part in this although it may be found at the extreme end of what is a very very long homosexual continuum SECOND May I again remind readers that all these events in England or Scotland etc took place in an area..the British Isles that was entirely ruled and run by people we would consider Frenchmen.Their language education and culture was entirely French.If you had said to William the Conqueror that he was now the proud king of England,you would have insulted him.Call me by my rightful title he would said The Duke of Burgundy!! The endless references to England and the English King etc confuse the reality that we are talking about French men who were jostling for power among themselves.It is probably true that Wallace and Bruce who both would have considered themselves Frenchmen irrespective of where they were born, cleverly realised that they could use the fighting energy of the Scots tribes to defeat their French Norman brother armies in the North of England liberate the Norman hating English and slowly,move south with the aim of taking power over all England .It would of course still have been French speaking Norman power Writing always about the Scots and English gives a totally absurd and false picture of the situation.The same trick is played in Ireland where many people actually believe that the English invaded Ireland in 1179!! In fact of course it was a French speaking French Norman army led by the French born and educated French speaking King of England(!!") Henry II ,acting incidentally by the orders of the Pope ..to reintroduce Catholicism into Ireland !!
Analysis of the Fieschi Letter and Events at Berkeley Castle ==
The Fieschi Letter, written by Manuel Fieschi around 1340. It was discovered in the department of archives at Montpellier in a cartulary, compiled in 1368, of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne , treasurer of Pope Urban V . It was first published in 1878 by Alexandre Germain. The letter was written by Manuel Fieschi and address to the son of Edward II , Edward III . The source of this information is the Doherty book cited below.
S Historians generally agree Edward II was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327, although the method of death is unclear. The Fieschi Letter claims Edward II escaped from Berkeley Castle and was not murdered at all. The letter claimed Edward II traveled to Ireland, across Europe, and finally became a monk in an Italian monastery after his escape. Fieschi, who had met Edward II and would have known him on sight, claimed to have personally spoken to the deposed and supposedly dead King, and heard his confession. The Fieschi Letter does not say Edward II was dead at the time it was written, so one can assume Fieschi was claiming Edward II was still alive as of the date he was writing the letter, 13 years after Edward II was said to have been murdered.
There is a fascinating, entertaining, and comprehensive analysis of the Fieschi Letter, in Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003) by Paul Doherty . Mr. Doherty also sets out in detail other curious events surrounding the murder of Edward II , and the pursuit and prosecution of those involved in his murder. Mr. Doherty has studied history at Liverpool and Oxford universities. He earned a PhD in history from Oxford.
Mr. Doherty places the letter in the relevant historical context. He talks at length and in detail about Manuel Fieschi, his relationship with the English royal family, and his service to the Vatican. He provides an analysis of which parts of the letter indicate Fieschi had accurate inside knowledge of the ultimate fate of Edward II , and which parts of the letter show gaps or errors in Fieschi's knowledge of facts which are, and were at the time, historically verifiable. He also provides information about what points of the letter the person the letter was addressed to, Edward III , would have known were incorrect.
In addition:
The accepted historical record states the highly mobile, organized, and well resourced Dunheved Gang learned where Edward II was imprisoned in July 1327. They hatched a plot to free him. The gang caused a riot in Cirencester, disappeared, and then turned up in Chester. Then the government issued writs against the Dunheved Gang for avoiding military service in Scotland. On 1 August 1327, Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle and responsible the custody of Edward II , was given special powers to hunt down and bring the gang to trial.
The accepted historical record states the Dunheved Gang made a raid on Berkeley Castle some time during July 1327, and may have freed Edward II temporarily. Historians have stated Edward II was either immediately returned to Berkeley Castle , or was never freed and moved around to other castles during July and August 1327. Historians agree Edward II was back at Berkeley Castle by the beginning of September 1327. Historians generally agree Edward II was not at Berkeley Castle during the interval between mid-July 1327 and 1 September 1327. A possible explanation for this confusion among historians were gaps in the recordkeeping and bills submitted by Thomas Berkeley to the government for reimbursement for Edward II's keep during his imprisonment at Berkeley Castle, which were not submitted until long after Edward II's historically accepted date of death. The generally accepted historical fact states the Dunheved Gang were, ultimately, never able to free Edward II , and he was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327.
Mr. Doherty also emphasizes in his book the letter of John Walwayn, printed in the Ancient Correspondence in the Public Records Office, and published by the historian Tanquerery. John Walwayn , a royal clerk, was sent to Berkeley Castle to investigate the Dunheved raid of July 1327. He was a royal clerk, so one would presume he was sent by, or under the authority of, Queen Isabella and/or Roger Mortimer, who were running the government at the time. Walwayn's panicked letter regarding the raid makes it obvious something was seriously awry at Berkeley Castle in July 1327, and clearly states Edward II was indeed freed from his imprisonment by the Dunheved Gang during the July 1327 raid. This, and other curious events regarding the pursuit and prosecution, or lack thereof, of Edward II's murderers and others involved in the events at Berkeley Castle during the period of July to September 1327 are detailed in Mr. Doherty's book.
Mr. Doherty's conclusion is Edward II was not murdered and was indeed freed by the Dunheved Gang from Berkeley Castle on or about 19 July 1327. Mr. Doherty makes the case that Edward II survived at least 13 years after the date historians believe he was murdered, which was the approximate timing of the Fieschi Letter. The book makes a pretty compelling case, in my opinion.
He concludes the Fieschi Letter was nothing more than clever and subtle means of blackmail to encourage Edward III to resist pressure to divest Manuel Fieschi of offices and lands he then held under the authority of the English Catholic Church. Fieschi received monetary benefits from being a foreign absentee office holder and landlord. Many in England resented foreigners who received monetary benefit from the English Catholic Church in return for little or no work. There was pressure brought to bear upon Edward III at the time the Fieschi Letter was written to revoke these types of privileges for all foreign absentee beneficiaries. Edward III did revoke the rights of many foreign absentee office holders and landlords due to this pressure. Manuel Fieschi, however, not only did not lose any of his offices or lands, but was awarded additional offices and lands by Edward III thereafter and financially prospered. If the letter was meant as blackmail, it worked beautifully.
Why would Edward III not want anyone to know his father had not been murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327? (Items 2 and 3 might be a tad inexact as I can't currently locate my source book. If there are any errors I will correct them once I have done additional research and/or located the book.)
It all makes for absolutely fascinating reading, even if other historians and fellow Wikipedians believe it is a load of historical bunk.
-- Jsternsp 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions a certain "Charles": "On 31 May 1325, Isabella agreed to a Peace Treaty. It favoured France and required the King to pay homage, in France to Charles. But Edward decided instead to send his son who would pay homage to Charles." Am I right to assume this is [Charles IV of France], Isabella's brother? If so, this should be mentioned explicitly in the article.
Top.Squark 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Lovingnews1989 ( talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Why is the picture at the very top left hand side of this page the same as the Edward I page? shouldnt there be diferent pictures?
Apparently there is a mistake either here or in the article on Adam FitzRoy: This article says: "Edward had also fathered at least one illegitimate son, Adam FitzRoy, who accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1312 and died on 18 September 1322." The article on Adam FitzRoy says: "He accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1322, and died shortly afterwards on September 18, 1322." Which Scottish campaigns are the right ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.182.222 ( talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1322 is the correct date. I've changed it in the article.
AlianoreD (
talk)
13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As current, listed percentages add up to 107. 71.186.172.82 ( talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have waited a few days, trying to let this sink into my (rather slow) mind and with the desire not to be stupid or rude, but i can't help but think that this revision by Contaldo80 is going too far. Though it is a long time since i have read or seen Marlowe's play, i don't think Edward's homosexuality (if it existed) is made explicit in it; in many, or most, modern productions, perhaps, i agree, but that's not what we have here. And, of course, we have to remember, that even if Marlowe showed penetrative homosexual intercourse on stage his play is merely fiction, not an historical study which we can use as evidence.
I have to say that i also have a question about the edit summary left: "[D]on't want to lose the clear homosexual element to this somewhere in the section". While i always AGF that begins to sound like leaning towards a POV in an edit. In an earlier part of the same section on Edward & Piers, also added i think by Contaldo80, we state that the evidence "does not, however, prove that Edward and Gaveston were lovers".
For these reasons i have revised the edit. Comments? Cheers, Lindsay Hi 10:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My reasoning really is that Edward is seen by many in the modern LGBT community and more widely as being a 'gay' king. Now I accept that the evidence is not clear cut - it's always pretty difficult to pin down the nature of personal relationships - but what evidence exists is pretty good and does at least point to the strong possibility that Edward was homosexual. My concern is that one could read the whole article and yet nowhere make the link that we are talking about homosexuality - it's currently all a bit euphemisitic. I think we can afford to be a bit more explicit. Happy to make clear that the jury is out, but would like to see something that at least clarifies what the issue actually is. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's worth reminding ourselves of the wiki definition of "homosexuality" - it refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex". Edward's relationship with Gaveston and later Depenser could quite credibly be seen as at least a romantic attraction; possibly sexual attraction (alongside the complete failure of a mrriage with Isabella).
I think the argument in favour of explicit evidence is a red-herring, as we do not need to look for a record of actual sexual activity between the two; but rather a unique bond. We also need to contextualise the historical position. Homosexual or bisexual men at this time would not have been in a position to be explicit in their attraction and behaviour (even a king). The penalty was (and remained) death. Historically homosexuality is therefore 'invisible' - perhaps only glimpsed when individuals were sent on their way to the stake.
I think we need to content ourselves with a balanced analysis of what contemporaries said and how this is interpreted by modern scholars. I agree that no defintive answer can ever be reached, but nevertheless feel the issue should be sensibly covered. I find the suggestion that this is 'pandering' slightly offensive, but I shall let that pass. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I do. And very grateful for your efforts to be understanding. Regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
CHALLENGED: I challenge this material, as unverified for lack of citing a reliable source --please see my consecutive edits to view the exact narrative, by the ' 'diffs' '. This claim is spurious because there is no demonstrated connection to any basis in fact --ie, to the reliable historical record. I appeal to any wiki editor who can provide a ' 'detailed and verifiable' ' source (for this claimed method of killing Edward II) to do so now.-- Jbeans ( talk) 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Alf, I'm also surprised, on two counts:
1. I expect a Wikipedia Administrator to accept seriously the requirement to furnish definitive-data-of-record that corrects the problem of unsupported narrative for historical claims —ie, if he/she volunteers to argue the narrative is 'True'. It's not ok to casually shift the burden to the one who challenges the unsupported material. (FYI, though I looked at the link you offered, I pursued "no attempt to verify the quote", because I challenge the unsupported historical claim of the narrative, ie, the 'quote' —as 'Not True'. And, lest you think I mistook your meaning, Alf —your link certainly does not verify the claim). If, OTOH, you believe the claim 'True' (ie, that a hot-poker-driven-up-the-anus was 'true' history re the fate of Edward II), then you are obliged to do the hard work to authenticate the source for the claim. This, you have not done, your responses thus far notwthstanding.
2. Alf, I am surprised too, at the faith you seem to posit in Sir Thomas de la Moore as a verifiable and reliable source —as though his 'writing' here has been authenicated by historians/scholars. The opposite appears to be the case: anyone reading the scholars' reviews of de la Moore will note they assessed him, not a writer (see Geoffrey the Baker); and they (ie, Stubbs and Thompson) adjudged he was credited for stuff actually written by his paid scribe (ie, Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, or, Geoffrey the Baker). IMO —regardless of the author-status of either de la Moore or Geoffrey the Baker— you, Alf, have not provided analyses (by historian/scholars) that speak to the verisimilitude of the hot-poker yarn.
(Alf, I am re-posting the tags; and asking you to find historical documentation to support the mayhem claimed by the narrative —if you can. Wikipedia, for its credibility, should not report a political yarn —no matter how venerable and deliciously salacious— as 'True', just because somebody —a long time ago— wrote it down and said it was so. Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, et al, do that for a living any day of the week; it's called ' truthiness'!)-- Jbeans ( talk) 11:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this the citation for de la Moore needed for the text? "Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Vol. 2 Commendatio lamentabilis in transitu magni regis Edwardi, 1 Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvan auctore Canonico Bridlingtoniensi, 2 Monachi cujusdam Malmesberiensis vita Edward II, 3 Vita et mors Edward II. Conscripta a Thoma de la Moore, 4 By William STUBBS, of Bridlington JOHN. Published by , 1883"
Isn't it a case of simply rephrasing the text to make clear that we do not know exactly how Edward died? One account is obviously that of the contemporary, de la Moore. This is helpful as it is the source of later "popular" accounts of the death - including that set out by Marlowe in his play. We should of course make clear that he was only a minor official, not witness to the death, and that other sources suggest a different death. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the bracketed mention of Thomas Moore, the line now again reads "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source and no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II" I have moved the fact tag to the end of that as I 'challenge' the fact that "no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened" - if scholars do say that then we can reference them. The section needs re-writing as we jump ahead in the mention of rumours of copper pipe (where I've added a 'who?' tag) ahead of the chronicler who appears to have introduced it in the 1330s. The Thomas Moore quote should be put into that section maybe?-- Alf melmac 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
== Edward II and Gaveston
Re the claim that 'Edward declared that he loved Gaveston more than life itself': The contemporary chronicle you seem to be referring to says that "when the King's son saw him [Gaveston] he fell so much in love that he entered upon an enduring compact with him." NOT that 'Edward loved Gaveston more than life itself'! He wasn't a bad romance novelist! Joanne2009 ( talk) 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section (previously) titled 'Death' —to improve this article by reporting the rigorous and definitive reseach of Dr Ian Mortimer, a scholar and professional historian who is currently very active in this field; he has recently published authoritative analyses and convincing argument that: >>> in 1327, in merry olde England, Edward II did not die, was not murdered, nor assassinated; and he was not even tortured to death —'compleate' with great horrific dollops of pornoviolent drama for titillating 14th- and 21st-century audiences<<< (BTW: not Dr M's words!).
Instead, Mortimer argues, the evidence shows that Edward was seen in England and known to be alive in and after the year 1330; that he survived and escaped the confines of Berkeley Castle and England itself, apparently to find near-anonymous exile in western Europe until his eventual death in northern Italy. (Mortimer's essay, "A note on the deaths of Edward II", is linked in the article.)
My narrative is sourced almost entirely on Mortimer's lengthy essay, and is essentially a selective reporting of the same. I urge every person interested in (contentious) history issues to read Dr Mortimer's "..deaths of Edward II", in its entirety, to appreciate the scholarship and rigorous methods involved with professional historical research.
As a convenience for tracking to Mortimer's essay, I posted the new narrative twice. First time: several main points are 'marked' with a cross-reference, e.g.[REF para 99] to the essay; then the second, official posting, loses the 'marks'. (By clicking the "prev" option (history page) on the second posting, the reader can display the cross-reference 'marks' in 'stand-out' red, for easy reading.)-- Jbeans ( talk) 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)/re corrections:-- Jbeans ( talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Alison Weir also looks at the survival question in "Isabella". Personally, I am still not convinced by the arguments, a deposed King would be too powerful to leave alive. However, it is a fascinating possibility and I agree that a separate article is a good idea. Robruss24 ( talk) 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I request we wait a while and see if others have a problem with the length of the new section. Meanwhile, I'd be keen to learn if anyone has a problem with the quality of the words, i.e.; with the content/argument of the source document published by Ian Mortimer: 'Note on the deaths of Edward II' (Talk about lengthy! it's a long essay —my section narrative is but a condensed derivative of it— but, his thorough approach, and rigorous logic, is necessary to discover and document the credible evidence he has revealed.)-- Jbeans ( talk) 07:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have a problem more with the tone of the new section than with the length. (But I also think it's too long.) It seems unduly laudatory of Ian Mortimer and not at all NPOV. Mortimer's work (as cited) is less than a decade old, and phrasing like "authoritative analysis" and "definitive evidence," as well as the repeated emphasis that Mortimer is a historian, really seems unwarranted. Since this article is about Edward II and not Ian Mortimer, we should leave the focus there. If Mortimer has convinced other historians of this era (and nothing said here shows that), then there's no need to say so much about how good a job Mortimer did in proving his case. Just say that recent evidence has demonstrated that the long-held beliefs are incorrect and correct them. Point to Mortimer's article by all means, but don't talk about him so much. If Mortimer hasn't convinced other historians, then the current state of the debate should be summarized concisely and any detailed consideration of the argument shunted to a different article. Tsength ( talk) 07:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Extensive editing of this section, largely devoted to increasing the profile of: "A Note on the Deaths of Edward II" (2008) —i.e., the essay, its name, and its role as a reference here; especially to highlight the essay's key role in reporting a credible historical analysis of the fate of Edward II and the mystery still surrounding his actual death; and to distinguish it from Dr Mortimer's other works that deal with, or touch on, the same subject. >>>And, once started, more copy-editing to improve word flow, etc.-- Jbeans ( talk) 09:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
WHY is this section full of eye-bleeding italics that make the thing look like the writing of an over-wrought school girl? While Mortimer's book is an interesting discussion of the subject, there still remain some serious questions in my mind that make me at least mildly skeptical: that no one ever gave away making effigies to fake the display of his body, that no one ever gave away guarding him for all those years, that they were willing to allow someone as potentially deadly as Edward II to live. That doesn't mean that Mortimer isn't right, but I would love to see this re-written so that it doesn't look like someone gushing over their favorite historian.
I'm not willing to do the reading (my interest mainly lies elsewhere) to see how other historians have reacted, but I sincerely wish someone more knowledgeable would bring some balance to this section.
JScotia (
talk)
17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The 5 May edit provides a different word, 'authenticate', (a verb), for 'authenticatable', (an adjective; source: dictionary.com); both words are correct here —though with different meanings; I accept the change which may resonate with more readers. Still, I am concerned to ensure the reader 'gets' the "however" proviso which follows: that all those other stories —including the infamous 'hot poker' yarn— were carefully documented by Mortimer and found to be, (all of 'em), >>sourced to the Lord Berkeley report —which (report) Mortimer confirmed— but which (report) also in fact conveyed a fictitious message: that the old king was dead —which was a lie; and the funereal ruse was on! —which (lie) Mortimer revealed. Hence, all, and each-of, those other stories cannot be authenticated; and hence the edits just made here.-- Jbeans ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have flagged the section on Edwards death for its POV... The article gives WP:Undue weight to disussing Ian Mortimer's theories on when Edward Died. I am not saying that we should not mention it... but it should be no more than a sentence or two. First, we should give primacy of both place and space to the views held by the majority of historians... second should come minority views that have been published in peer reviewed academic journals .. third should come alternative views published in books for the general public ... and last should come self-published examinations and musings by historians on their personal websites (which is where Mortimer has published his theories). The amount of space devoted to Mortimer's somewhat fringe theory needs to be cut WAY back. Blueboar ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
On another matter regarding Edward's death, unless I missed it somehow. Whereas the article has a lot a ambiguity concerning his death, there is even more ambiguity concerning how his remains ended up in the sarcophagus at Gloucester Cathedral. It might be helpful to explain this. Are his remains in the tomb? Or is this actually a cenotaph? Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't know for certain that Edward II died at Berkley Castle so the instroduction should say his "supposed death". ( JerryAtkinson ( talk) 08:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
At this moment, the subheading "Death" says he was murdered on October 11, but in the upper right of the article, under his picture, it says September 21. Which is correct? Esaons ( talk) 12:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Edward II's death date remains uncorroborated and the arguments for different dates are summarized in a specific section in this article. The article is categorized in 1327 deaths, is this appropriate as the year the majority of sources mention or should it be changed to a less specific date category (such as Category:14th-century deaths) as there is no unequivocal evidence for such a precise figure? Fæ ( talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Use Category:14th-century deaths, because there is disageement among reputable, currently practicing historians that there is sufficient physical evidence—especially archival records—of when, how, or where Edward II died.-- Jbeans ( talk) 11:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that there has already been extensive discussion of the treatment of Edward's sexuality in this article, and the statement that he was "Widely rumoured to have been either homosexual or bisexual" may reflect a consensus decision on how to resolve the issue, but it is definitely unsatisfactory. Firstly, it is unclear among whom and at what time this claim was "widely rumoured". If it is meant to describe claims made by modern historians, "rumoured" is not the right word. If it is meant to refer to contemporary speculation, it fails on two bases: 1) examples need to be cited; and 2) neither the terms "homosexual" or "bisexual" nor the concepts that these terms denote existed in fourteenth century England. How to rectify this problem is something I will leave to those with more historical knowledge and more experience editing in Wikipedia. Dadsnagem ( talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really taking issue with our use of the terms "homosexual" or "bisexual" with regard to Edward II. If we take "widely rumoured" to refer to contemporary speculation, using these terms in this clause in effect puts these words in the mouths of Edward's contemporaries, which is anachronistic. (As I said before, if "widely rumoured" is meant to refer to modern history, it is the word "rumoured" that is inappropriate.) So, yes, these terms should not be employed here. Furthermore, it is at least questionable that the concept of sexual preference of or orientation to one's own sex existed in pre-modern times, so saying that he "was attracted by and preferred having sex with humans of his own gender" doesn't quite work either. The best solution, I think, would be to find some contemporary (or near-contemporary) accounts of Edward's sexual behavior or predilections and quote them directly. Modern scholarship could also be cited (and noted as such). Dadsnagem ( talk) 18:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish someone could come up with an image of Edward from a more or less contemporary source to replace the three 19th century "fictional portraits" on this page. None of the three even resembles either of the others, except for the crown and the beard. They're a waste of space, and misleading besides. -- Michael K Smith Talk 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The text here states that Piers Gaveston "was considered to be athletic and handsome; he was a few years older", but the entries for both Edward and Gaveston give the year of birth as 1284 (OK, in Gaveston's case it is written as "c.", but still, it could have been stated as "BEFORE", not "circa", which allows for the possibility that Gaveston was younger than Edward). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.33.247.11 ( talk) 07:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC).
We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour
User: Pgarret (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
there is an inconsistency between this article and the one on Edward I. There, Edward II is shown at least the 14th child of Edward and Eleanor, here he is the 11th. I have no specialist knowledge, can anyone else verify and align? Lucyrjones ( talk) 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Could the dispute over the death of Edward II be settled if a DNA test were done on his remains? Does anybody know who needs to be contacted so that this could be done? Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The the death is Edward II is currently being investigated by an international team of scientists and historians from Italy, The UK and the USA, including Huddersfield University and Pavia University, coordinated by the Auramala Project. The project will compare archival records in Italy with those in England, and carry out DNA testing on descendants of Edward II along the female line IBKF ( talk) 13:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
Thank you. I look forward to hearing about the results, though will this settle the mystery over his fate? There is no doubt over the children of Edward II, we know what happened to them. Only a DNA test on the bones that lie in the grave of Edward II in Gloucester Cathedral would determine whose bones they are. As a royal grave I assume that only the present Monarch could assent tests being conducted..
What DNA testing cannot tell us, is what actually happened at Berkley Castle in 1327, and certainly won't be able to confirm the accounts of a traumatic death for Edward II.
Perhaps when then have finished with the current project they could also give consideration to testing the "bones" of Edward V and his bother which were "discovered" at the Tower in Charles II's day.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
?:-) Oh yes indeed!. Re Mortimer book, yes I have that one as well and his theory is also quite convincing. Enough for the above two Univs to undertake a serious investigation. I won't spoil the book for you! Mortimer knows his stuff though as he has done books on Edward III and Henry V as well.
Back to the Dick 3 issue, you may care to look at the Henry VI talk page. "Mad "Hal was of course also deposed, and murdered (by most accounts) and guess who was suspected of giving the order.....? Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Removed the "Bisexual" cat a couple months ago and just now removed the "LGBT history prior to the 19th century" and "Gay royalty" cats. The main biographical text does not justify their inclusion (rumors aren't enough) and I seriously doubt Wikipedia allows their inclusion based upon depictions in popular entertainment. JayHubie ( talk) 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Strange, there is a reference entitled Red hot poker, or red herring? But no explanation or mention of the red hot poker or the idea of one in the text. What is missing? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
"According to the Calendar of Fines Edward III (1327–1330) held at Winchester records office, Edward III made every effort to track down his father's killers, William Ockley (not Ogle), Sir Thomas Gurney, and Sir John Maltravers, but they fled the country."
I would like to see this better sourced/explained. I can find the Calendar of Fines online at archive.org, but the only mention of the alleged killers I can see is the following:
"1330. Membrane 11 cont. Dec. 9. Order to the sheriff of Gloucester to take into the king's hand Westminster, the lands, goods and chattels of Thomas de Gurneye, knight, and William de Ockeleye, who are cited for adherence to Roger de Mortuo Mari, late enemy of the king and realm, and divers other felonies and excesses against the king's peace, and have secretly withdrawn from the realm, not permitting themselves to receive justice thereon ; and to keep them safely until further order, so that he answer at the Exchequer for the issues of the said lands and for the said goods and chattels. By K. & C. The like to the sheriffs of Wilts, Somerset and Dorset." 11 Arlington ( talk) 06:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted, as in English, you don't "reign" as the Prince of Wales (which is what this infobox displays as). It's incorrect. The French infobox displays it as a "title", which is correct. If you're still keen to add it, worth having a look at the Royalty infobox template and seeing if there's a category for titles. Unless the dates are already in the main text, it will need a reliable reference though - I note this, as the wiki isn't a reliable source and can't be used as a reference. Hchc2009 ( talk) 03:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking to do some work on this article over the coming months. Before starting, I'd like to propose a change to the citation style. The current style, although not necessarily 100% consistent at the moment, typically uses long reference (see MOS:CITE). I wish to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template, with the bibliography using the "cite book" templates. As an example, see Henry I of England. I think that short citations for articles with lots of citations are easier to read and to edit. This would, I believe, represent a change, and would require prior consensus, as per MOS:CITE.
If the consensus was to retain long citations, I'd intend to tidy up the citations so that they are consistent etc., following the model at William the Conqueror. I've chosen this example specifically, as it is a featured article, and shows the long citation system at its best! Either system can work perfectly well, and I'll be carrying out the research etc. for the article regardless of which way the consensus on the citation system goes.
Comments welcomed! Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
As promised in the previous section, I've gone through and expanded the article; everything should now be cited to a high-quality source (I think!), and should reflect the current literature. It will, I'm sure, need a copy-edit, and please shout if I've introduced any howlers etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Caponer ( talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009, upon my initial review of this fantastic article, I feel that it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I plan on conducting a more comprehensive and thorough Good Article review of this article in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer ( talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hchc2009, I have finished conducting a more thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I have a few minor comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comments. It looks like the article currently meets all the Good Article criteria, so once these have all been addressed, it is good to go for passage to GA status! I cannot stress enough that you have crafted a beautifully-written and well-researched article, Hchc! -- Caponer ( talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Background and Early life (1284–1307)
Early reign (1307–11)
Mid-reign (1311–21)
Later reign (1321–26)
Fall from power (1326–27), Death (1327), Edward as king, and Legacy
Issue
Very many thanks for the careful review - it's improved the text a lot. The only change I haven't made is the final one on issue; there are a couple of variants out here in terms of style, and examples of Featured Articles that use the format in this one include Henry I of England, Henry III of England and Stephen of England. I wouldn't oppose anyone converting between the two, but I'll admit a personal preference for the simpler one! ;) Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Contaldo80, just to say that I'm very happy to discuss the historical work on Edward II and sexuality if that helps at all (NB: if you haven't already seen it, I'd strongly recommend the 2006 contributions to the "New Perspectives" volume if you've got access to it). Hchc2009 ( talk) 14:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Some constructive comments - thanks. Some of your approaches for dealing with different parts of the material seem broadly sensible. Happy also to use Ormrod as he was one of my lecturers at college :) But having had a read of where we are, I have some outstanding concerns. Firstly, while I accept that it's not appropriate for us to insert primary sources based on our own research; it is ok to use them where historians (secondary sources) have cited them to illuminate a point. So I don't know why we dropped the quotes from the Vita Edwardus Secundi and the Flores Historiarum? My preference would be to re-include them. Secondly is it really true that Mark Ormrod has said that homosexuality was "equated" with heresy? Perhaps many "heretics" were frequently accused by the Church of sodomy etc; but that's not to say the Church automatically defined someone as a heretic if they had engaged in sodomy. Some clarification needed I think. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is total affront to good historical, scholarly research such labels! Why so asks a layman? 1. Applying anachronistic concepts on historical people and events are a definitive NO NO! (ex. In the USSR, according to the Marxist-Leninist Theory of History Thomas Müntzer was a communist - a pure example of anachronism) 2. No source or a support of a widely held view among scholars. Major Torp ( talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Torp, if you're looking for some reading on this topic, I'd suggest starting with the works cited in the article, which covers the current academic corpus on Edward fairly comprehensively. The two most recent biographies by Haines and Phillips would give you a framework, and I'd then recommend working through the relevant chapters on sexuality in Dodd and Musson's edited volume The Reign of Edward II. Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to read the academic sources cited in the article concerning Edward's sexuality, Torp, I'm not sure there's much more I can do to help you. Hchc2009 ( talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Was he really called Edward of Caernarfon? I suspect he was called Edward of Carnarvon. When I was a child, back in the 1960s, the town's name was Caernarfon if you were speaking Welsh, but Carnarvon or Caernarvon if you were speaking English (similar thing for Conway/Conway). Since then, it's been decided that the modern name of the town is Caernarfon in both languages. But back in Edward's day it would, for an English speaker, have been almost certainly spelt as Carnarvon. As titles go, the current Lord Carnarvon is still Lord Carnarvon. So I believe that he should be referred to as Edward of Carnarvon, because he was England, spoke English rather than Welsh, and we are in English Language Wikipedia rather than Welsh Language Wikipedia (Edward ap Caernarvon?) Simhedges ( talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.
The information is cited to Seymour Phillips' 2011 volume, a 679-page peer reviewed book published by Yale University Press, one of the leading academic presses in the world - I can't vouch for Yale University Press's intent in publishing it, or Phillips' in writing it, but I doubt that it was aimed at sales in the local castle gift shop in North Wales... ;) Tout died in 1929, and his work is no longer authoritative for this period. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not wiki-savvy enough to have the confidence to edit it, but found this surprising "a fountain that produced wine and pimento, a spiced medieval drink" (because it's pre-Columbus). It turns out that pimento in this context is a drink on its own, and has no relationship to the sweet chilli. Re-wording it to "a fountain that produced pimento, a spiced medieval drink, and wine..." would remove the ambiguity and resulting confusion. [1], but there are probably more suitable references. Urilabob ( talk) 10:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I have removed the "LGBT" categories because the article is well-referenced to the effect that Edward's homosexuality is a matter of dispute. This is certainly a notable discussion, but, as the article is aware:
You do not get to "out" people as "LGBT" merely because some commentator has speculated they might have had a homosexual relationship. There needs to be positive self-identification, or overwhelming consensus of historians. Even if there was such a consensus, the appropriate category would be Category:Homosexual people, and not "LGBT people", as we don't have a single reference associating Edward with the (post-1990) "LGBT" moniker. See also {{ Subjective category}}.
I am documenting this perfectly straightforward category edit here beause it has been reverted by User:Contaldo80, not based on any argument related to the subject matter but with a threatening edit summary,
I am editing here as a contributor, not an admin, but for context please note that I have been an administrator since 2004 and I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia policy, and I know the difference between a content dispute and "disruptive editing".
I am not "pushing an agenda" (not categorising somebody is not making a judgement as to their sexuality. I have no opinion on the sexual orientation of Edward II, and I am not categorizing Edward II as a "straight medieval person" -- which category for some strange reason we do not even seem to have. It's almost as if sexual orientation is not an encyclopedic question unless it is directly tied to the notablility of a person). I am happy to assume that the miscategorisation was an honest mistake based on incomplete information, but the behavior of Contaldo80 does seem to at least suggest the presence of a "POV agenda" being present at least in this particular contributor. -- dab (𒁳) 13:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm less sure. Our policy on this doesn't require us to be "certain"; if memory serves, it requires that reliable sources "commonly and consistently" use this as a defining characteristic of the subject. It is certainly commonly discussed in relation to Edward; I think the "consistent" bit is more questionable, as there are obviously exceptions, but even those critiquing the homosexuality theory still expend considerable space in their works discussing the issue. We also talk in the policy about a "consensus" in reliable sources for historical figures; a consensus doesn't have to be unanimous or overwhelming. On balance I'd be inclined to go with Contaldo on this one at this stage. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
We read the expression ' and a canopy made of oolite and Purbeck stone.' but this is confusing. Oolitic limestone is one type found in Purbeck. Purbeck marble is another. Roach is yet another. 'Purbeck stone could be any of them. Dean1954 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 ( talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are some sources for Edward II reign dates being (8 Jul 1307 - 20 Jan 1327):
Jhood1 ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This needs to stop and discussion needs to take place here rather than continuing to slow-move edit war over this. If it continues, protection may be necessary or worse, blocks. Start your discussion below, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator note Well, you got three days to figure it out. That should be plenty of time.
El_C
06:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The comment that a suggested method of murder by anal insertion seems unlikely has a counter-argument. Sir Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, reasons that, although abdicate, Edward would still be considered a king. To incise the king's body as with a blade would be a great sin according to divine law. However, his murderers may have observed, with great irony, that the use of an existing orifice would be permitted, particularly since the king had himself done so.
Might be worth a footnote.
Dmforcier (
talk)
23:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
King killed by a red hot poker. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#King killed by a red hot poker until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
NotReallySoroka (
talk) (formerly DePlume)
03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is there any particular reason you removed all references to Edward II's homosexuality from his page? Although I am not an expert on this, it seems there's enough evidence that it at least warrents a mention.
Basil Fawlty 06:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Whoever", not "whomever". "Are" is a copulative verb and both arguments take the nominative. You made the same mistake in your next post below. By the way, if there exist persons who were then gay, I'd say the poor things are awfully old. And as for your statement that "it's a long considered academic fact that Edward II was gay," I think that "long considered academic fact" part sits within some very limited knowledge on your part. Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think anyone considered themselves to be, or were considered to be, gay at that time. Slrubenstein
I don't think there's much doubt that Edward II had a homosexual relationship with Piers Gaveston, and in all likelihood, the Younger Despenser. Although not explicitly stated by chroniclers, they said of Edward and Gaveston "the King is lovesick for his minion." Adam of Orleton denounced the King as a "tyrant and a sodomite", following the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer. Froissart noted of the Younger Despenser "He was a sodomite, even it is said, with the King." Does that make him gay, as we would see it? I don't know. He had at least five children, and clearly enjoyed sexual relations with women. Perhaps that makes him bisexual in our terms.
Sean Fear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.11.71 ( talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
a small aside: is the story about Edward's allegedly gay lover being executed after his private parts were burnt in front of him, true?? i just read it on the internet. it's crazy what man will do to man.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.110.89.98 ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2004 (UTC).
Yes, it is true. Thats one version of the "drawn" bit of "hung, drawn, and quartered". CheeseDreams 16:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The simple fact that a google search of the term Edward II will bring up mostly sites suggesting he was homosexual requires it be addressed in the opening paragraph. If you have a problem with this perception, put it under a subheading of "Arguments over sexuality" and provide both POVs on the issue, but the fact that the public (rightly or wrongly) percieves it to be so requires that it be mentioned.
Suicidal mongoose 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for pity's sake, mongoose, people on the web will say anything they damn well please. Al Gore is accused of claiming he invented the internet, though he never quite made that claim. George Bush is accused of "being AWOL" though had he actually been AWOL he'd have spent years in jail. Doesn't matter whether the claims are true, just keep saying something over and over, and sooner or later some mongoose is going to assert that because it was said so much, it must be true! Remember that claiming historical figures were gay has become the activists' favorite pastime; of course you're going to find a gazillion websites claiming it as true. Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I've long doubted the truth of the "hot poker story"; it bears too much resemblence to the death of Edward's brother-in-law, Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford. Humphrey was speared through the anus while fighting on a drawbridge by a pikeman hidden under the drawbridge. It's my suspicion that some confusion arose, or the story was deliberately changed, so the victim changed from the Earl of Hereford to the King of England for a more "ironic" death.
When does the "hot poker" story first arise? Any contemporary or near-contemporary reports?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mississippienne ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 March 2005 (UTC).
John Trevisa wasn't even born until about 1342 and lived until 1402. He didn't become a chaplain at Berkeley until the late 1370s, half a century after Edward II's murder - hardly a contemporary source! The Thomas Berkeley who was Lord of Berkeley then was the *grandson* of the Thomas, Lord Berkeley who was Edward II's custodian, and was born in 1353. And Higden was writing in the 1340s, not 1326/27 - that date doesn't refer to when he was writing, but the time he was writing about. AlianoreD 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I took out the Thomas de la Moore quote, as it gives no source. Also, I notice the contributor said de la Moore's account was not published till after 1352(?) when the stub on Thomas De la Moore says he died sometime after 1347. At any rate, you need to cite the source, whatever it is. If someone wants to put in the Bingham and Doherty citations as mentioned above, they should do so. 11 Arlington ( talk) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This section is written in a POV manner without sources. It needs complete rewriting and proper sourcing to be of encyclopædic standard. FearÉIREANN 20:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tried not to give a POV, but the variance between the letter and previously accepted history has to be explained. If you want sources, I have pasted the text of Fieschi letter below. The letter was discovered by a French archivist in the binding of an official register dated 1368 which had been the property of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne, and was preserved in the Archives Departmentales d'Herault at Montpelier. It is still there today. The letter has been tested and is not a later forgery. Fieschi is a well known historical figure. He had several livings in England and knew the country though the letter shows a confusion between the rank of a knight and that of a lord. The following is a faithful translation from the original Latin. I suggest that you read the letter and then send me your comments about where the article is faulty. Could it be that your concern is that the letter differs from what you thought you knew?
In the name of the Lord, amen
Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I have taken care to be known to Your Highness.
First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the coast. There he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock, and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led him to Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places. And there, many people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you were crowned at the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him, after some little time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Barford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases you, I shall give you my clothes that you may better be able to escape.' Then, wearing the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison. And when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed. And, having got the keys out of the door, he opened it and went out, with his keeper. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, and fearing the indignation of the Queen, for fear of their lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in a chest, his heart having been extracted and maliciously presented to the Queen, as if they were the heart and body of your father; and, as the body of the King, the said porter was buried at Gloucester. Afer he had escaped from the prison of the aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together with his companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the castellan of the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys.
Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do, crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen days. Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been considered, and after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of devotion, he might see the [shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving Cologne, he crossed over Germany and headed for Milan in Lombardy.
In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo], in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.
Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant.
JMcC
09:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
FearÉIREANN has failed to respond to two messages asking about his doubts about factual accuracy. It is only possible to conclude that this user has no grounds for his objection. I have therefore removed the factual accuracy warning from this section.
JMcC
09:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel there should be some mention in the article about the belief that he was not killed and infact escapted. See the Letter section above. There is a fair amount of popular belief in this and even some scholars have argued this. Citing such things as the archetecutre at the hermitage that he supposedly lived out his life at, the above letter, and the manner which his body was displayed for viewing after his "death". There is also a fairly good argument that goes to debunking this, I have the articles somewhere but I have to find them so I don't want to add them myself just yet. If someone can remember them would you please add them. If the "hot-poker" story is included, which it should be since it is part of the mythology of Edward II, his supposed survival should be as well.
I also vaugley remember reading somewhere that Edward III supposedly met his father at some point later in his life but had no idea it was him as he was dressed as a hermit and did not let his son know. Anybody else remember anything like this? Or is this something I have come up with from something else? Some help with these things would be appreciated. FubarDac 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read a few times that another victim was used and Edward was smuggled out of the country to Lombardy and spent the rest of his life as a hermit. Maybe worth adding to the main article with a credible source? Lugnuts 18:31, 31 July 2006
I've read, in the recent biography of Roger Mortimer, that he was smuggled to Corfe and kept prisoner there. In relation to the article, that Edward III pressed charges against Roger over the death of his father, which is used to signify that Edward II was in fact dead, can be disputed by the same logic as to why Roger kept Edward II alive. Roger needed an extra hold over the young king, instead of just his mother, so the king was kept alive, after his supposed death, to allow the option that he might return. If Edward III denied his father's death, there might be a call from some of the Lords and Earls to reinstate his throne, thereby forcing the young Edward to abdicate. Concerning the tomb and hearse used during Edward II's burial, only a small number of people would have known about Edward II survival, so the abbots, clerks and people in charge of the funeral would not have known, and acted in good faith, and would have done the same if the king were dead, and this was his actual funeral. The chronicles saying that Edward was killed, were written in Northern England, the home of the Earl of Lancaster, an opponent of the Mortimer, and there by could be propaganda against Roger. The Earl of Kent was executed in 1330 for treason, ammounting to trying to rescue Edward II from prison, this was 3 years after the 'death' of Edward. Another piece of evidence was that Thomas de Berkeley, being tried alongside Roger in Parliament, pleaded that he couldn't have killed EdwardII because he was still alive. I cannot find sources for this apart from 'The Greatest Traitor', a biography of Roger Mortimer, sympathtic to his cause, and it's included bibliography.
What Thomas Berkeley said to Parliament was "nec unquam scivit de morta sua usque in presenti parliamento ipso" - "that he never even knew about that [Edward II's] death until the present Parliament". What exactly he meant by that is a matter for speculation. He didn't explicitly claim that Edward II was still alive. AlianoreD 07:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about this section. Putting numerous sections in italics doesn't make it more believable, just makes it look like someone is over-wrought. I'm fine with presenting an argument that Edward II may have escaped, but not at accepting it at face value on the basis of ONE person's books.
Could someone who is knowledgeable enough to address this take a look at it and try to present some balance? I can come up with a half-dozen counter-arguments easily: these were people who were accustomed to killing so why would they have allowed someone as dangerous as Edward II to live? Would the people who have seen his body have been that easily fooled? Why did no one ever mention having made effigies to fake his body? If he was kept prisoner for 14 years, how did they manage to keep this quite that secret? NO ONE ever let it slip? The Earl of Kent being executed doesn't prove that Edward II was still alive, only that the Earl may have thought that he was.
I'm skeptical, but it could have happened that way. But a better discussion of the subject needs to be made. What is there now comes across as at best a one-sided rant, in my opinion.
71.236.155.174 ( talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The sections on the Despensers needs to be rewritten as it takes a tone that makes them sound like they were friends of the people when historical research shows the greatest abuses came during thier time in power. I believe at least one historian has pointed out that the barons and the commoners would have gladly taken Gaveston over them. FubarDac 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There's already a lot of speculation that Edward II survived the alleged assassination, but even then, the date was and is still uncertain.
Why, then, is there a "Sept 21 1327" as if carved in stone, inalterable? I've tried several times to add a "?" but to no avail.→ R Young { yakł talk} 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Where has the Fieschi letter gone? There don't seem to be any references to it in the article, and the death of Edward, poker and all, seems to be described as certain (despite the fact that historians today generally accept that that story is hardly based on eyewitness accounts). I'm sure I remember it being here a few months ago, and now it seems to have vanished. So where is it? Surely something so highly relevant to Edward should be mentioned there? Accordingly, unless someone can give me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be there, I am going to elaborate upon the doubts surrounding Edward's death, and add a section regarding the letter (using 'The Greatest Traitor', by Ian Mortimer). Michaelsanders 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I added this because I think the new sections of the article need some Wiki links. I realise it's "work in progress", of course. And rew D alby 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing about this period in British history, but it looks like the legacy of this figure is disputed. I can't help but noticing that we have a very long article without any inline references. If this person is disputed then inline referencing will be required. I don't understand why a blog that "wishes to save the reputation of a beloved monarch" (or something along those lines) is listed as a source. This article needs solid referencing from printed works. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Alison Weir (2005)in Isabella, She Wolf of France; Queen of England, makes a persuasive argument that Edward survived an attempt on his life on 21 September 1327 by adherents of Roger Mortimer and subsequently fled to Italy via Corfe and the continent. She argues that Edward's custodians covered up his escape with a substituted body to avoid the consequences of their own incompetence. She cites several sources as evidence for this argument including the Fieschi letter, which she also quotes in full and analyses in the context of other evidence.
The Fieschi letter has never been discredited,although there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. None of these undermine its authenticity however. Fieschi himself was a clergyman, a distant relative of Edward II,and a friend of Edward III's tutor, who had lived in England and who had met Edward II. He was therefore sure to have recognised the King when he saw him in Italy. Weir estimates that given the length of time it would have taken for Edward to travel to Italy as an individual without the benefit of his position, and the length of time the letter says Edward spent in the hermitages in Italy, then it is likely that Edward II died c.1337 (although the margin of error is quite high). The Fieschi letter should certainly be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, since it is germane to any discussion of Edward II's life and death.
21 September 1327 is commonly cited as the date of Edward's death/escape because Isabella was 130 miles away from Berkeley, where Edward was held, when she was informed of his death during the night of 23 September (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, Public Record Office; Haines: Edwardus Redividus). This is about how long it would have taken a messenger to travel from Berkeley to Lincoln, where the Queen was staying. One source (the Berkeley accounts) says that a messenger arrived in Lincoln on 28 September. This is likely to be an error and should be 23 September, but it is enough to raise a question mark about the date of Edward II's death/escape.
Edward's postulated homosexuality is relevant in that it partially explains his close associations with Gaveston and le Despenser at the expense of his wife and the English magnates and the trouble those relationships subsquently brought down on his head. The life and death of Edward II is important for the precedents it established in British law and government, not for its spurious effects on the sexual politics of the 21st century.
The death by red hot poker is an obvious fiction since it would cause so much pain that the victim would be screaming for days, before succumbing to shock and peritonitis. Hardly, therefore, a method of assassination that would be chosen by conspirators trying to discreetly get rid of a deposed king. Nor is it consistent with the considerate treatment Edward received while he was a prisoner. Moreover, as previous correspondents have noted on this page, there are no contemporary sources that support this story. Some reasonably contemporary sources assert that he was either suffocated or poisoned (much more plausible). R0byn8 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The wiki article on Edward I has a more complete (and probably more balanced) version of his death than that dealt with here. Stories given here are discounted as improbable in the Edward I page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.46.52 ( talk) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Edward II wiki article, the writer states that Edward I selected Piers Gaveston as an companion to his son in 1298. However, in the Piers Gaveston wikipedia article, the date is cited as 1300. Does anyone have information on the actual date, or is their an academic debate regarding the date?
Article also freqently uses the stock phrase "some people" when discussing controversial items such as Edward's homosexuality (I think we also need to use care in seperating homosexuality from homosexual behavior, so as not to project contemporary readings onto Edward's sexual behavior). It would be beneficial to have some idea of who "some people" are and what their claims are.
I'm going to clean up the article for general awkward sentence structure, poor punctuation and excessive clausation. -- Madnessandcivilization 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
sORRY TO INTERUPT AGAIN ! But there are two things people must get clear about these matters.Please understand that intense emotional even physically affectionate relationships between men do not indicate homosexuality in the modern sense.Until less than a hundred years ago, women were regarded as children and many men found it impossible to have the deep total mental relationship with them that they had with men.There has for example been talk about Abraham Lincoln sharing his bed with a male friend..This is an example of this.It has nothing to do with any feelings of homosexual desire except in the widest sense which is that males are tribal pack animals who hunt and fight together and who therefore need to have emotional feelings that drive them to help and come to the aid of other men.Homosexual desire in the modern sense has no part in this although it may be found at the extreme end of what is a very very long homosexual continuum SECOND May I again remind readers that all these events in England or Scotland etc took place in an area..the British Isles that was entirely ruled and run by people we would consider Frenchmen.Their language education and culture was entirely French.If you had said to William the Conqueror that he was now the proud king of England,you would have insulted him.Call me by my rightful title he would said The Duke of Burgundy!! The endless references to England and the English King etc confuse the reality that we are talking about French men who were jostling for power among themselves.It is probably true that Wallace and Bruce who both would have considered themselves Frenchmen irrespective of where they were born, cleverly realised that they could use the fighting energy of the Scots tribes to defeat their French Norman brother armies in the North of England liberate the Norman hating English and slowly,move south with the aim of taking power over all England .It would of course still have been French speaking Norman power Writing always about the Scots and English gives a totally absurd and false picture of the situation.The same trick is played in Ireland where many people actually believe that the English invaded Ireland in 1179!! In fact of course it was a French speaking French Norman army led by the French born and educated French speaking King of England(!!") Henry II ,acting incidentally by the orders of the Pope ..to reintroduce Catholicism into Ireland !!
Analysis of the Fieschi Letter and Events at Berkeley Castle ==
The Fieschi Letter, written by Manuel Fieschi around 1340. It was discovered in the department of archives at Montpellier in a cartulary, compiled in 1368, of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne , treasurer of Pope Urban V . It was first published in 1878 by Alexandre Germain. The letter was written by Manuel Fieschi and address to the son of Edward II , Edward III . The source of this information is the Doherty book cited below.
S Historians generally agree Edward II was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327, although the method of death is unclear. The Fieschi Letter claims Edward II escaped from Berkeley Castle and was not murdered at all. The letter claimed Edward II traveled to Ireland, across Europe, and finally became a monk in an Italian monastery after his escape. Fieschi, who had met Edward II and would have known him on sight, claimed to have personally spoken to the deposed and supposedly dead King, and heard his confession. The Fieschi Letter does not say Edward II was dead at the time it was written, so one can assume Fieschi was claiming Edward II was still alive as of the date he was writing the letter, 13 years after Edward II was said to have been murdered.
There is a fascinating, entertaining, and comprehensive analysis of the Fieschi Letter, in Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003) by Paul Doherty . Mr. Doherty also sets out in detail other curious events surrounding the murder of Edward II , and the pursuit and prosecution of those involved in his murder. Mr. Doherty has studied history at Liverpool and Oxford universities. He earned a PhD in history from Oxford.
Mr. Doherty places the letter in the relevant historical context. He talks at length and in detail about Manuel Fieschi, his relationship with the English royal family, and his service to the Vatican. He provides an analysis of which parts of the letter indicate Fieschi had accurate inside knowledge of the ultimate fate of Edward II , and which parts of the letter show gaps or errors in Fieschi's knowledge of facts which are, and were at the time, historically verifiable. He also provides information about what points of the letter the person the letter was addressed to, Edward III , would have known were incorrect.
In addition:
The accepted historical record states the highly mobile, organized, and well resourced Dunheved Gang learned where Edward II was imprisoned in July 1327. They hatched a plot to free him. The gang caused a riot in Cirencester, disappeared, and then turned up in Chester. Then the government issued writs against the Dunheved Gang for avoiding military service in Scotland. On 1 August 1327, Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle and responsible the custody of Edward II , was given special powers to hunt down and bring the gang to trial.
The accepted historical record states the Dunheved Gang made a raid on Berkeley Castle some time during July 1327, and may have freed Edward II temporarily. Historians have stated Edward II was either immediately returned to Berkeley Castle , or was never freed and moved around to other castles during July and August 1327. Historians agree Edward II was back at Berkeley Castle by the beginning of September 1327. Historians generally agree Edward II was not at Berkeley Castle during the interval between mid-July 1327 and 1 September 1327. A possible explanation for this confusion among historians were gaps in the recordkeeping and bills submitted by Thomas Berkeley to the government for reimbursement for Edward II's keep during his imprisonment at Berkeley Castle, which were not submitted until long after Edward II's historically accepted date of death. The generally accepted historical fact states the Dunheved Gang were, ultimately, never able to free Edward II , and he was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327.
Mr. Doherty also emphasizes in his book the letter of John Walwayn, printed in the Ancient Correspondence in the Public Records Office, and published by the historian Tanquerery. John Walwayn , a royal clerk, was sent to Berkeley Castle to investigate the Dunheved raid of July 1327. He was a royal clerk, so one would presume he was sent by, or under the authority of, Queen Isabella and/or Roger Mortimer, who were running the government at the time. Walwayn's panicked letter regarding the raid makes it obvious something was seriously awry at Berkeley Castle in July 1327, and clearly states Edward II was indeed freed from his imprisonment by the Dunheved Gang during the July 1327 raid. This, and other curious events regarding the pursuit and prosecution, or lack thereof, of Edward II's murderers and others involved in the events at Berkeley Castle during the period of July to September 1327 are detailed in Mr. Doherty's book.
Mr. Doherty's conclusion is Edward II was not murdered and was indeed freed by the Dunheved Gang from Berkeley Castle on or about 19 July 1327. Mr. Doherty makes the case that Edward II survived at least 13 years after the date historians believe he was murdered, which was the approximate timing of the Fieschi Letter. The book makes a pretty compelling case, in my opinion.
He concludes the Fieschi Letter was nothing more than clever and subtle means of blackmail to encourage Edward III to resist pressure to divest Manuel Fieschi of offices and lands he then held under the authority of the English Catholic Church. Fieschi received monetary benefits from being a foreign absentee office holder and landlord. Many in England resented foreigners who received monetary benefit from the English Catholic Church in return for little or no work. There was pressure brought to bear upon Edward III at the time the Fieschi Letter was written to revoke these types of privileges for all foreign absentee beneficiaries. Edward III did revoke the rights of many foreign absentee office holders and landlords due to this pressure. Manuel Fieschi, however, not only did not lose any of his offices or lands, but was awarded additional offices and lands by Edward III thereafter and financially prospered. If the letter was meant as blackmail, it worked beautifully.
Why would Edward III not want anyone to know his father had not been murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327? (Items 2 and 3 might be a tad inexact as I can't currently locate my source book. If there are any errors I will correct them once I have done additional research and/or located the book.)
It all makes for absolutely fascinating reading, even if other historians and fellow Wikipedians believe it is a load of historical bunk.
-- Jsternsp 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions a certain "Charles": "On 31 May 1325, Isabella agreed to a Peace Treaty. It favoured France and required the King to pay homage, in France to Charles. But Edward decided instead to send his son who would pay homage to Charles." Am I right to assume this is [Charles IV of France], Isabella's brother? If so, this should be mentioned explicitly in the article.
Top.Squark 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Lovingnews1989 ( talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Why is the picture at the very top left hand side of this page the same as the Edward I page? shouldnt there be diferent pictures?
Apparently there is a mistake either here or in the article on Adam FitzRoy: This article says: "Edward had also fathered at least one illegitimate son, Adam FitzRoy, who accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1312 and died on 18 September 1322." The article on Adam FitzRoy says: "He accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1322, and died shortly afterwards on September 18, 1322." Which Scottish campaigns are the right ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.182.222 ( talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1322 is the correct date. I've changed it in the article.
AlianoreD (
talk)
13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As current, listed percentages add up to 107. 71.186.172.82 ( talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have waited a few days, trying to let this sink into my (rather slow) mind and with the desire not to be stupid or rude, but i can't help but think that this revision by Contaldo80 is going too far. Though it is a long time since i have read or seen Marlowe's play, i don't think Edward's homosexuality (if it existed) is made explicit in it; in many, or most, modern productions, perhaps, i agree, but that's not what we have here. And, of course, we have to remember, that even if Marlowe showed penetrative homosexual intercourse on stage his play is merely fiction, not an historical study which we can use as evidence.
I have to say that i also have a question about the edit summary left: "[D]on't want to lose the clear homosexual element to this somewhere in the section". While i always AGF that begins to sound like leaning towards a POV in an edit. In an earlier part of the same section on Edward & Piers, also added i think by Contaldo80, we state that the evidence "does not, however, prove that Edward and Gaveston were lovers".
For these reasons i have revised the edit. Comments? Cheers, Lindsay Hi 10:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My reasoning really is that Edward is seen by many in the modern LGBT community and more widely as being a 'gay' king. Now I accept that the evidence is not clear cut - it's always pretty difficult to pin down the nature of personal relationships - but what evidence exists is pretty good and does at least point to the strong possibility that Edward was homosexual. My concern is that one could read the whole article and yet nowhere make the link that we are talking about homosexuality - it's currently all a bit euphemisitic. I think we can afford to be a bit more explicit. Happy to make clear that the jury is out, but would like to see something that at least clarifies what the issue actually is. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's worth reminding ourselves of the wiki definition of "homosexuality" - it refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex". Edward's relationship with Gaveston and later Depenser could quite credibly be seen as at least a romantic attraction; possibly sexual attraction (alongside the complete failure of a mrriage with Isabella).
I think the argument in favour of explicit evidence is a red-herring, as we do not need to look for a record of actual sexual activity between the two; but rather a unique bond. We also need to contextualise the historical position. Homosexual or bisexual men at this time would not have been in a position to be explicit in their attraction and behaviour (even a king). The penalty was (and remained) death. Historically homosexuality is therefore 'invisible' - perhaps only glimpsed when individuals were sent on their way to the stake.
I think we need to content ourselves with a balanced analysis of what contemporaries said and how this is interpreted by modern scholars. I agree that no defintive answer can ever be reached, but nevertheless feel the issue should be sensibly covered. I find the suggestion that this is 'pandering' slightly offensive, but I shall let that pass. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I do. And very grateful for your efforts to be understanding. Regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
CHALLENGED: I challenge this material, as unverified for lack of citing a reliable source --please see my consecutive edits to view the exact narrative, by the ' 'diffs' '. This claim is spurious because there is no demonstrated connection to any basis in fact --ie, to the reliable historical record. I appeal to any wiki editor who can provide a ' 'detailed and verifiable' ' source (for this claimed method of killing Edward II) to do so now.-- Jbeans ( talk) 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Alf, I'm also surprised, on two counts:
1. I expect a Wikipedia Administrator to accept seriously the requirement to furnish definitive-data-of-record that corrects the problem of unsupported narrative for historical claims —ie, if he/she volunteers to argue the narrative is 'True'. It's not ok to casually shift the burden to the one who challenges the unsupported material. (FYI, though I looked at the link you offered, I pursued "no attempt to verify the quote", because I challenge the unsupported historical claim of the narrative, ie, the 'quote' —as 'Not True'. And, lest you think I mistook your meaning, Alf —your link certainly does not verify the claim). If, OTOH, you believe the claim 'True' (ie, that a hot-poker-driven-up-the-anus was 'true' history re the fate of Edward II), then you are obliged to do the hard work to authenticate the source for the claim. This, you have not done, your responses thus far notwthstanding.
2. Alf, I am surprised too, at the faith you seem to posit in Sir Thomas de la Moore as a verifiable and reliable source —as though his 'writing' here has been authenicated by historians/scholars. The opposite appears to be the case: anyone reading the scholars' reviews of de la Moore will note they assessed him, not a writer (see Geoffrey the Baker); and they (ie, Stubbs and Thompson) adjudged he was credited for stuff actually written by his paid scribe (ie, Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, or, Geoffrey the Baker). IMO —regardless of the author-status of either de la Moore or Geoffrey the Baker— you, Alf, have not provided analyses (by historian/scholars) that speak to the verisimilitude of the hot-poker yarn.
(Alf, I am re-posting the tags; and asking you to find historical documentation to support the mayhem claimed by the narrative —if you can. Wikipedia, for its credibility, should not report a political yarn —no matter how venerable and deliciously salacious— as 'True', just because somebody —a long time ago— wrote it down and said it was so. Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, et al, do that for a living any day of the week; it's called ' truthiness'!)-- Jbeans ( talk) 11:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this the citation for de la Moore needed for the text? "Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Vol. 2 Commendatio lamentabilis in transitu magni regis Edwardi, 1 Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvan auctore Canonico Bridlingtoniensi, 2 Monachi cujusdam Malmesberiensis vita Edward II, 3 Vita et mors Edward II. Conscripta a Thoma de la Moore, 4 By William STUBBS, of Bridlington JOHN. Published by , 1883"
Isn't it a case of simply rephrasing the text to make clear that we do not know exactly how Edward died? One account is obviously that of the contemporary, de la Moore. This is helpful as it is the source of later "popular" accounts of the death - including that set out by Marlowe in his play. We should of course make clear that he was only a minor official, not witness to the death, and that other sources suggest a different death. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the bracketed mention of Thomas Moore, the line now again reads "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source and no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II" I have moved the fact tag to the end of that as I 'challenge' the fact that "no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened" - if scholars do say that then we can reference them. The section needs re-writing as we jump ahead in the mention of rumours of copper pipe (where I've added a 'who?' tag) ahead of the chronicler who appears to have introduced it in the 1330s. The Thomas Moore quote should be put into that section maybe?-- Alf melmac 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
== Edward II and Gaveston
Re the claim that 'Edward declared that he loved Gaveston more than life itself': The contemporary chronicle you seem to be referring to says that "when the King's son saw him [Gaveston] he fell so much in love that he entered upon an enduring compact with him." NOT that 'Edward loved Gaveston more than life itself'! He wasn't a bad romance novelist! Joanne2009 ( talk) 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section (previously) titled 'Death' —to improve this article by reporting the rigorous and definitive reseach of Dr Ian Mortimer, a scholar and professional historian who is currently very active in this field; he has recently published authoritative analyses and convincing argument that: >>> in 1327, in merry olde England, Edward II did not die, was not murdered, nor assassinated; and he was not even tortured to death —'compleate' with great horrific dollops of pornoviolent drama for titillating 14th- and 21st-century audiences<<< (BTW: not Dr M's words!).
Instead, Mortimer argues, the evidence shows that Edward was seen in England and known to be alive in and after the year 1330; that he survived and escaped the confines of Berkeley Castle and England itself, apparently to find near-anonymous exile in western Europe until his eventual death in northern Italy. (Mortimer's essay, "A note on the deaths of Edward II", is linked in the article.)
My narrative is sourced almost entirely on Mortimer's lengthy essay, and is essentially a selective reporting of the same. I urge every person interested in (contentious) history issues to read Dr Mortimer's "..deaths of Edward II", in its entirety, to appreciate the scholarship and rigorous methods involved with professional historical research.
As a convenience for tracking to Mortimer's essay, I posted the new narrative twice. First time: several main points are 'marked' with a cross-reference, e.g.[REF para 99] to the essay; then the second, official posting, loses the 'marks'. (By clicking the "prev" option (history page) on the second posting, the reader can display the cross-reference 'marks' in 'stand-out' red, for easy reading.)-- Jbeans ( talk) 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)/re corrections:-- Jbeans ( talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Alison Weir also looks at the survival question in "Isabella". Personally, I am still not convinced by the arguments, a deposed King would be too powerful to leave alive. However, it is a fascinating possibility and I agree that a separate article is a good idea. Robruss24 ( talk) 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I request we wait a while and see if others have a problem with the length of the new section. Meanwhile, I'd be keen to learn if anyone has a problem with the quality of the words, i.e.; with the content/argument of the source document published by Ian Mortimer: 'Note on the deaths of Edward II' (Talk about lengthy! it's a long essay —my section narrative is but a condensed derivative of it— but, his thorough approach, and rigorous logic, is necessary to discover and document the credible evidence he has revealed.)-- Jbeans ( talk) 07:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have a problem more with the tone of the new section than with the length. (But I also think it's too long.) It seems unduly laudatory of Ian Mortimer and not at all NPOV. Mortimer's work (as cited) is less than a decade old, and phrasing like "authoritative analysis" and "definitive evidence," as well as the repeated emphasis that Mortimer is a historian, really seems unwarranted. Since this article is about Edward II and not Ian Mortimer, we should leave the focus there. If Mortimer has convinced other historians of this era (and nothing said here shows that), then there's no need to say so much about how good a job Mortimer did in proving his case. Just say that recent evidence has demonstrated that the long-held beliefs are incorrect and correct them. Point to Mortimer's article by all means, but don't talk about him so much. If Mortimer hasn't convinced other historians, then the current state of the debate should be summarized concisely and any detailed consideration of the argument shunted to a different article. Tsength ( talk) 07:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Extensive editing of this section, largely devoted to increasing the profile of: "A Note on the Deaths of Edward II" (2008) —i.e., the essay, its name, and its role as a reference here; especially to highlight the essay's key role in reporting a credible historical analysis of the fate of Edward II and the mystery still surrounding his actual death; and to distinguish it from Dr Mortimer's other works that deal with, or touch on, the same subject. >>>And, once started, more copy-editing to improve word flow, etc.-- Jbeans ( talk) 09:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
WHY is this section full of eye-bleeding italics that make the thing look like the writing of an over-wrought school girl? While Mortimer's book is an interesting discussion of the subject, there still remain some serious questions in my mind that make me at least mildly skeptical: that no one ever gave away making effigies to fake the display of his body, that no one ever gave away guarding him for all those years, that they were willing to allow someone as potentially deadly as Edward II to live. That doesn't mean that Mortimer isn't right, but I would love to see this re-written so that it doesn't look like someone gushing over their favorite historian.
I'm not willing to do the reading (my interest mainly lies elsewhere) to see how other historians have reacted, but I sincerely wish someone more knowledgeable would bring some balance to this section.
JScotia (
talk)
17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The 5 May edit provides a different word, 'authenticate', (a verb), for 'authenticatable', (an adjective; source: dictionary.com); both words are correct here —though with different meanings; I accept the change which may resonate with more readers. Still, I am concerned to ensure the reader 'gets' the "however" proviso which follows: that all those other stories —including the infamous 'hot poker' yarn— were carefully documented by Mortimer and found to be, (all of 'em), >>sourced to the Lord Berkeley report —which (report) Mortimer confirmed— but which (report) also in fact conveyed a fictitious message: that the old king was dead —which was a lie; and the funereal ruse was on! —which (lie) Mortimer revealed. Hence, all, and each-of, those other stories cannot be authenticated; and hence the edits just made here.-- Jbeans ( talk) 09:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have flagged the section on Edwards death for its POV... The article gives WP:Undue weight to disussing Ian Mortimer's theories on when Edward Died. I am not saying that we should not mention it... but it should be no more than a sentence or two. First, we should give primacy of both place and space to the views held by the majority of historians... second should come minority views that have been published in peer reviewed academic journals .. third should come alternative views published in books for the general public ... and last should come self-published examinations and musings by historians on their personal websites (which is where Mortimer has published his theories). The amount of space devoted to Mortimer's somewhat fringe theory needs to be cut WAY back. Blueboar ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
On another matter regarding Edward's death, unless I missed it somehow. Whereas the article has a lot a ambiguity concerning his death, there is even more ambiguity concerning how his remains ended up in the sarcophagus at Gloucester Cathedral. It might be helpful to explain this. Are his remains in the tomb? Or is this actually a cenotaph? Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't know for certain that Edward II died at Berkley Castle so the instroduction should say his "supposed death". ( JerryAtkinson ( talk) 08:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
At this moment, the subheading "Death" says he was murdered on October 11, but in the upper right of the article, under his picture, it says September 21. Which is correct? Esaons ( talk) 12:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Edward II's death date remains uncorroborated and the arguments for different dates are summarized in a specific section in this article. The article is categorized in 1327 deaths, is this appropriate as the year the majority of sources mention or should it be changed to a less specific date category (such as Category:14th-century deaths) as there is no unequivocal evidence for such a precise figure? Fæ ( talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Use Category:14th-century deaths, because there is disageement among reputable, currently practicing historians that there is sufficient physical evidence—especially archival records—of when, how, or where Edward II died.-- Jbeans ( talk) 11:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that there has already been extensive discussion of the treatment of Edward's sexuality in this article, and the statement that he was "Widely rumoured to have been either homosexual or bisexual" may reflect a consensus decision on how to resolve the issue, but it is definitely unsatisfactory. Firstly, it is unclear among whom and at what time this claim was "widely rumoured". If it is meant to describe claims made by modern historians, "rumoured" is not the right word. If it is meant to refer to contemporary speculation, it fails on two bases: 1) examples need to be cited; and 2) neither the terms "homosexual" or "bisexual" nor the concepts that these terms denote existed in fourteenth century England. How to rectify this problem is something I will leave to those with more historical knowledge and more experience editing in Wikipedia. Dadsnagem ( talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really taking issue with our use of the terms "homosexual" or "bisexual" with regard to Edward II. If we take "widely rumoured" to refer to contemporary speculation, using these terms in this clause in effect puts these words in the mouths of Edward's contemporaries, which is anachronistic. (As I said before, if "widely rumoured" is meant to refer to modern history, it is the word "rumoured" that is inappropriate.) So, yes, these terms should not be employed here. Furthermore, it is at least questionable that the concept of sexual preference of or orientation to one's own sex existed in pre-modern times, so saying that he "was attracted by and preferred having sex with humans of his own gender" doesn't quite work either. The best solution, I think, would be to find some contemporary (or near-contemporary) accounts of Edward's sexual behavior or predilections and quote them directly. Modern scholarship could also be cited (and noted as such). Dadsnagem ( talk) 18:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish someone could come up with an image of Edward from a more or less contemporary source to replace the three 19th century "fictional portraits" on this page. None of the three even resembles either of the others, except for the crown and the beard. They're a waste of space, and misleading besides. -- Michael K Smith Talk 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The text here states that Piers Gaveston "was considered to be athletic and handsome; he was a few years older", but the entries for both Edward and Gaveston give the year of birth as 1284 (OK, in Gaveston's case it is written as "c.", but still, it could have been stated as "BEFORE", not "circa", which allows for the possibility that Gaveston was younger than Edward). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.33.247.11 ( talk) 07:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC).
We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour
User: Pgarret (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
there is an inconsistency between this article and the one on Edward I. There, Edward II is shown at least the 14th child of Edward and Eleanor, here he is the 11th. I have no specialist knowledge, can anyone else verify and align? Lucyrjones ( talk) 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Could the dispute over the death of Edward II be settled if a DNA test were done on his remains? Does anybody know who needs to be contacted so that this could be done? Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The the death is Edward II is currently being investigated by an international team of scientists and historians from Italy, The UK and the USA, including Huddersfield University and Pavia University, coordinated by the Auramala Project. The project will compare archival records in Italy with those in England, and carry out DNA testing on descendants of Edward II along the female line IBKF ( talk) 13:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
Thank you. I look forward to hearing about the results, though will this settle the mystery over his fate? There is no doubt over the children of Edward II, we know what happened to them. Only a DNA test on the bones that lie in the grave of Edward II in Gloucester Cathedral would determine whose bones they are. As a royal grave I assume that only the present Monarch could assent tests being conducted..
What DNA testing cannot tell us, is what actually happened at Berkley Castle in 1327, and certainly won't be able to confirm the accounts of a traumatic death for Edward II.
Perhaps when then have finished with the current project they could also give consideration to testing the "bones" of Edward V and his bother which were "discovered" at the Tower in Charles II's day.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
?:-) Oh yes indeed!. Re Mortimer book, yes I have that one as well and his theory is also quite convincing. Enough for the above two Univs to undertake a serious investigation. I won't spoil the book for you! Mortimer knows his stuff though as he has done books on Edward III and Henry V as well.
Back to the Dick 3 issue, you may care to look at the Henry VI talk page. "Mad "Hal was of course also deposed, and murdered (by most accounts) and guess who was suspected of giving the order.....? Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Removed the "Bisexual" cat a couple months ago and just now removed the "LGBT history prior to the 19th century" and "Gay royalty" cats. The main biographical text does not justify their inclusion (rumors aren't enough) and I seriously doubt Wikipedia allows their inclusion based upon depictions in popular entertainment. JayHubie ( talk) 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Strange, there is a reference entitled Red hot poker, or red herring? But no explanation or mention of the red hot poker or the idea of one in the text. What is missing? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
"According to the Calendar of Fines Edward III (1327–1330) held at Winchester records office, Edward III made every effort to track down his father's killers, William Ockley (not Ogle), Sir Thomas Gurney, and Sir John Maltravers, but they fled the country."
I would like to see this better sourced/explained. I can find the Calendar of Fines online at archive.org, but the only mention of the alleged killers I can see is the following:
"1330. Membrane 11 cont. Dec. 9. Order to the sheriff of Gloucester to take into the king's hand Westminster, the lands, goods and chattels of Thomas de Gurneye, knight, and William de Ockeleye, who are cited for adherence to Roger de Mortuo Mari, late enemy of the king and realm, and divers other felonies and excesses against the king's peace, and have secretly withdrawn from the realm, not permitting themselves to receive justice thereon ; and to keep them safely until further order, so that he answer at the Exchequer for the issues of the said lands and for the said goods and chattels. By K. & C. The like to the sheriffs of Wilts, Somerset and Dorset." 11 Arlington ( talk) 06:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted, as in English, you don't "reign" as the Prince of Wales (which is what this infobox displays as). It's incorrect. The French infobox displays it as a "title", which is correct. If you're still keen to add it, worth having a look at the Royalty infobox template and seeing if there's a category for titles. Unless the dates are already in the main text, it will need a reliable reference though - I note this, as the wiki isn't a reliable source and can't be used as a reference. Hchc2009 ( talk) 03:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking to do some work on this article over the coming months. Before starting, I'd like to propose a change to the citation style. The current style, although not necessarily 100% consistent at the moment, typically uses long reference (see MOS:CITE). I wish to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template, with the bibliography using the "cite book" templates. As an example, see Henry I of England. I think that short citations for articles with lots of citations are easier to read and to edit. This would, I believe, represent a change, and would require prior consensus, as per MOS:CITE.
If the consensus was to retain long citations, I'd intend to tidy up the citations so that they are consistent etc., following the model at William the Conqueror. I've chosen this example specifically, as it is a featured article, and shows the long citation system at its best! Either system can work perfectly well, and I'll be carrying out the research etc. for the article regardless of which way the consensus on the citation system goes.
Comments welcomed! Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
As promised in the previous section, I've gone through and expanded the article; everything should now be cited to a high-quality source (I think!), and should reflect the current literature. It will, I'm sure, need a copy-edit, and please shout if I've introduced any howlers etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Caponer ( talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hchc2009, upon my initial review of this fantastic article, I feel that it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I plan on conducting a more comprehensive and thorough Good Article review of this article in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer ( talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hchc2009, I have finished conducting a more thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I have a few minor comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comments. It looks like the article currently meets all the Good Article criteria, so once these have all been addressed, it is good to go for passage to GA status! I cannot stress enough that you have crafted a beautifully-written and well-researched article, Hchc! -- Caponer ( talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Background and Early life (1284–1307)
Early reign (1307–11)
Mid-reign (1311–21)
Later reign (1321–26)
Fall from power (1326–27), Death (1327), Edward as king, and Legacy
Issue
Very many thanks for the careful review - it's improved the text a lot. The only change I haven't made is the final one on issue; there are a couple of variants out here in terms of style, and examples of Featured Articles that use the format in this one include Henry I of England, Henry III of England and Stephen of England. I wouldn't oppose anyone converting between the two, but I'll admit a personal preference for the simpler one! ;) Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Contaldo80, just to say that I'm very happy to discuss the historical work on Edward II and sexuality if that helps at all (NB: if you haven't already seen it, I'd strongly recommend the 2006 contributions to the "New Perspectives" volume if you've got access to it). Hchc2009 ( talk) 14:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Some constructive comments - thanks. Some of your approaches for dealing with different parts of the material seem broadly sensible. Happy also to use Ormrod as he was one of my lecturers at college :) But having had a read of where we are, I have some outstanding concerns. Firstly, while I accept that it's not appropriate for us to insert primary sources based on our own research; it is ok to use them where historians (secondary sources) have cited them to illuminate a point. So I don't know why we dropped the quotes from the Vita Edwardus Secundi and the Flores Historiarum? My preference would be to re-include them. Secondly is it really true that Mark Ormrod has said that homosexuality was "equated" with heresy? Perhaps many "heretics" were frequently accused by the Church of sodomy etc; but that's not to say the Church automatically defined someone as a heretic if they had engaged in sodomy. Some clarification needed I think. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is total affront to good historical, scholarly research such labels! Why so asks a layman? 1. Applying anachronistic concepts on historical people and events are a definitive NO NO! (ex. In the USSR, according to the Marxist-Leninist Theory of History Thomas Müntzer was a communist - a pure example of anachronism) 2. No source or a support of a widely held view among scholars. Major Torp ( talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Torp, if you're looking for some reading on this topic, I'd suggest starting with the works cited in the article, which covers the current academic corpus on Edward fairly comprehensively. The two most recent biographies by Haines and Phillips would give you a framework, and I'd then recommend working through the relevant chapters on sexuality in Dodd and Musson's edited volume The Reign of Edward II. Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to read the academic sources cited in the article concerning Edward's sexuality, Torp, I'm not sure there's much more I can do to help you. Hchc2009 ( talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Was he really called Edward of Caernarfon? I suspect he was called Edward of Carnarvon. When I was a child, back in the 1960s, the town's name was Caernarfon if you were speaking Welsh, but Carnarvon or Caernarvon if you were speaking English (similar thing for Conway/Conway). Since then, it's been decided that the modern name of the town is Caernarfon in both languages. But back in Edward's day it would, for an English speaker, have been almost certainly spelt as Carnarvon. As titles go, the current Lord Carnarvon is still Lord Carnarvon. So I believe that he should be referred to as Edward of Carnarvon, because he was England, spoke English rather than Welsh, and we are in English Language Wikipedia rather than Welsh Language Wikipedia (Edward ap Caernarvon?) Simhedges ( talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.
The information is cited to Seymour Phillips' 2011 volume, a 679-page peer reviewed book published by Yale University Press, one of the leading academic presses in the world - I can't vouch for Yale University Press's intent in publishing it, or Phillips' in writing it, but I doubt that it was aimed at sales in the local castle gift shop in North Wales... ;) Tout died in 1929, and his work is no longer authoritative for this period. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not wiki-savvy enough to have the confidence to edit it, but found this surprising "a fountain that produced wine and pimento, a spiced medieval drink" (because it's pre-Columbus). It turns out that pimento in this context is a drink on its own, and has no relationship to the sweet chilli. Re-wording it to "a fountain that produced pimento, a spiced medieval drink, and wine..." would remove the ambiguity and resulting confusion. [1], but there are probably more suitable references. Urilabob ( talk) 10:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I have removed the "LGBT" categories because the article is well-referenced to the effect that Edward's homosexuality is a matter of dispute. This is certainly a notable discussion, but, as the article is aware:
You do not get to "out" people as "LGBT" merely because some commentator has speculated they might have had a homosexual relationship. There needs to be positive self-identification, or overwhelming consensus of historians. Even if there was such a consensus, the appropriate category would be Category:Homosexual people, and not "LGBT people", as we don't have a single reference associating Edward with the (post-1990) "LGBT" moniker. See also {{ Subjective category}}.
I am documenting this perfectly straightforward category edit here beause it has been reverted by User:Contaldo80, not based on any argument related to the subject matter but with a threatening edit summary,
I am editing here as a contributor, not an admin, but for context please note that I have been an administrator since 2004 and I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia policy, and I know the difference between a content dispute and "disruptive editing".
I am not "pushing an agenda" (not categorising somebody is not making a judgement as to their sexuality. I have no opinion on the sexual orientation of Edward II, and I am not categorizing Edward II as a "straight medieval person" -- which category for some strange reason we do not even seem to have. It's almost as if sexual orientation is not an encyclopedic question unless it is directly tied to the notablility of a person). I am happy to assume that the miscategorisation was an honest mistake based on incomplete information, but the behavior of Contaldo80 does seem to at least suggest the presence of a "POV agenda" being present at least in this particular contributor. -- dab (𒁳) 13:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm less sure. Our policy on this doesn't require us to be "certain"; if memory serves, it requires that reliable sources "commonly and consistently" use this as a defining characteristic of the subject. It is certainly commonly discussed in relation to Edward; I think the "consistent" bit is more questionable, as there are obviously exceptions, but even those critiquing the homosexuality theory still expend considerable space in their works discussing the issue. We also talk in the policy about a "consensus" in reliable sources for historical figures; a consensus doesn't have to be unanimous or overwhelming. On balance I'd be inclined to go with Contaldo on this one at this stage. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
We read the expression ' and a canopy made of oolite and Purbeck stone.' but this is confusing. Oolitic limestone is one type found in Purbeck. Purbeck marble is another. Roach is yet another. 'Purbeck stone could be any of them. Dean1954 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 ( talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are some sources for Edward II reign dates being (8 Jul 1307 - 20 Jan 1327):
Jhood1 ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This needs to stop and discussion needs to take place here rather than continuing to slow-move edit war over this. If it continues, protection may be necessary or worse, blocks. Start your discussion below, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator note Well, you got three days to figure it out. That should be plenty of time.
El_C
06:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The comment that a suggested method of murder by anal insertion seems unlikely has a counter-argument. Sir Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, reasons that, although abdicate, Edward would still be considered a king. To incise the king's body as with a blade would be a great sin according to divine law. However, his murderers may have observed, with great irony, that the use of an existing orifice would be permitted, particularly since the king had himself done so.
Might be worth a footnote.
Dmforcier (
talk)
23:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
King killed by a red hot poker. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#King killed by a red hot poker until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
NotReallySoroka (
talk) (formerly DePlume)
03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)