What do you think?
Rate this book
Edward II: The Unconventional King
He is one of the most reviled English kings in history. He drove his kingdom to the brink of civil war a dozen times in less than twenty years. He allowed his male lovers to rule the kingdom. He led a great army to the most ignominious military defeat in English history. His wife took a lover and invaded his kingdom, and he ended his reign wandering around Wales with a handful of followers, pursued by an army. He was the first king of England forced to abdicate his throne. Popular legend has it that he died screaming impaled on a red-hot poker, but in fact the time and place of his death are shrouded in mystery. His life reads like an Elizabethan tragedy, full of passionate doomed love, bloody revenge, jealousy, hatred, vindictiveness and obsession. He was Edward II, and this book tells his story. The focus here is on his relationships with his male 'favourites' and his disaffected wife, on his unorthodox lifestyle and hobbies, and on the mystery surrounding his death. Using almost exclusively fourteenth-century sources and Edward's own letters and speeches wherever possible, Kathryn Warner strips away the myths which have been created about him over the centuries, and provides a far more accurate and vivid picture of him than has previously been seen.
336 pages, Paperback
First published February 19, 2015
87 people are currently reading
1534 people want to read
About the author
Kathryn Warner
21 books181 followersI grew up in the north of England, and hold two degrees in medieval history and literature from the University of Manchester. I have run a blog about King Edward II (reigned 1307 to 1327) since 2005, have had work published about him in the prestigious academic journal the English Historical Review (founded 1886) and in the academic essay collection Fourteenth-Century England, and have appeared talking about him in the BBC documentary Quest for Bannockburn. I also appeared in a documentary about Edward II shown on the German-French TV channel Arte in late 2019, and have given a paper about him at the International Medieval Congress at the University of Leeds.
My first book, titled Edward II: The Unconventional King, was released in October 2014, and my biography of Edward II's queen Isabella of France (c. 1295-1358) was published in March 2016. My third book is an account of Edward's murder in 1327 or survival past that year, which came out in June 2017, and my fourth is a bio of Edward II's great-grandson Richard II, published October 2017. My fifth book, Blood Roses, came out in October 2018, and is an account of the royal houses of Lancaster and York from 1245 to 1399. My sixth was also published in October 2018 and is a biography of Edward II's malevolent favourite Hugh Despenser the Younger. My next two books came out in 2019: a travel guide to places in the UK associated with Edward II, called Following in the Footsteps of Edward II, and a biography of Edward III's queen Philippa of Hainault. A joint bio of Edward II's nieces Eleanor, Margaret and Elizabeth de Clare came out in February 2020, and a work of social history called Living in Medieval England: The Turbulent Year of 1326 was also published that year, A book about the Despenser family from 1261 to 1439 will come next, and a bio of Edward III's son/Henry IV's father John of Gaunt, second duke of Lancaster, is due out in 2021.
Projects I'm working on are: a joint bio of Edward II's five sisters; a joint bio of Edward III's granddaughters; a social history of London between 1300 and 1350; and a book about the medieval Beaumont family. And I'm sure there'll be plenty more after that!
My first book, titled Edward II: The Unconventional King, was released in October 2014, and my biography of Edward II's queen Isabella of France (c. 1295-1358) was published in March 2016. My third book is an account of Edward's murder in 1327 or survival past that year, which came out in June 2017, and my fourth is a bio of Edward II's great-grandson Richard II, published October 2017. My fifth book, Blood Roses, came out in October 2018, and is an account of the royal houses of Lancaster and York from 1245 to 1399. My sixth was also published in October 2018 and is a biography of Edward II's malevolent favourite Hugh Despenser the Younger. My next two books came out in 2019: a travel guide to places in the UK associated with Edward II, called Following in the Footsteps of Edward II, and a biography of Edward III's queen Philippa of Hainault. A joint bio of Edward II's nieces Eleanor, Margaret and Elizabeth de Clare came out in February 2020, and a work of social history called Living in Medieval England: The Turbulent Year of 1326 was also published that year, A book about the Despenser family from 1261 to 1439 will come next, and a bio of Edward III's son/Henry IV's father John of Gaunt, second duke of Lancaster, is due out in 2021.
Projects I'm working on are: a joint bio of Edward II's five sisters; a joint bio of Edward III's granddaughters; a social history of London between 1300 and 1350; and a book about the medieval Beaumont family. And I'm sure there'll be plenty more after that!
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
January 25, 2022
2.5. This book has one tendency so ear-flickingly, hair-pullingly annoying that I often wanted to set it down (or, now and then, send it pinwheeling across the room) for that alone. More about that below. So my rating is a weird, unrepresentative average of all-too-sporadic but very high highs and all-too-persistent lows.
Warner’s stated aim here is not “to whitewash a deeply flawed man or skate over his numerous errors and failings” but to “provide a more vivid and personal portrait of Edward than has been seen before, and to demolish some of the myths invented about him which have come to be widely and wrongly seen as historical fact.” Sometimes this feels right: the one thing everyone is sure they ‘know’ about Edward II is that he died by having a red-hot iron poker inserted via the, er, south portal, so the several pages devoted to exploding this myth are probably about right, but at other times—such as when Warner is convincing us that Edward II was in fact the real father of Isabella’s children and not Roger Mortimer—it seems disproportionate, and the work of correcting misconceptions begins to overshadow the project of painting that “more vivid and personal portrait” of Edward himself.
The book offers an admirably thorough and nuanced account of Edward’s famous “favourites,” most especially Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, and resists another tendency toward oversimplification in not simply acceding to the historiographic demands of the commonplace interpretation, which depends on underreading a lot of the evidence re: Edward and Isabella’s marriage, of these as simple romantic / sexual infatuations. One thing that emerges here is a sense that Edward II’s story changes a lot as prevailing views about non-heteronormative sexuality change. It is a homophobic society that will readily condemn Edward II as a weak, foppish fool by simplifying and vilifying his obvious love for Piers Gaveston. It is a society opening up to homosexuality and in need of what Warner calls a “gay icon” that works from a similarly simplified account of Edward’s relationship to Gaveston by celebrating it as obviously, purely and singularly a homosexual relationship and thus, among other things, being open to the clearly false notion that for this reason there’s somehow certainly no chance that Edward III or any of Isabella’s other children were legitimate. It is a society opening up to a broader spectrum of romantic and sexual ways of being that not only seems capable of acknowledging and accepting rather than simplifying away the complexities of Edward II’s case but also, it seems, coming closer to fourteenth-century notions of intimacy and the considerable overlap between homosexual and so-called homosocial relationships. Warner is open to the possibility that much more complex and idiosyncratic relationships existed in the “brotherhoods” of Edward and these haughty, arrogant, double-dealing and, in Despenser’s case, ultimately faithless friends, and this, along with excellent pen portraits of Gaveston, Despenser, Isabella and Roger Mortimer along the way, is among the book’s greatest strengths.
There are two big weaknesses. One is the fact that, having gone to so much trouble to introduce nuance and steer the lay reader of medieval history away from uncritical acceptance of the enormous, persistent and perception-warping myths about Edward II (that he was a wholly worthless incompetent sandwiched by two perfectly glorious kings; that he was nothing but a silly fop; that he was both simply and completely uninterested in his she-wolf wife and also simply and completely miserable to have been unloved and cuckolded by her; that he was murdered in a way that ensured his howls of agony would be heard across Gloucestershire but that his murderers chose their torturous method of symbolic execution—literally buggering the man to death by iron—to avoid leaving marks on his body and keep the foul play undetected), Warner then goes on to double down on a myth, or at least a view very much in the minority among historians, of her own in the last chapter: that Edward didn’t die in 1327 but, his death faked by several conspirators, instead he lived on in secret for many years. Not only does she lean hard on evidence that is no more than circumstantial to defend this view; she also frames it as simply true and handles the dominant view strangely dismissively. I’m very much a lay reader myself, but I know just enough to know that a great many historians don’t accept this conspiracy theory. This final rhetorical move seemed to me to call other aspects of the book into question.
The other problem here is a kind of bizarre and incredibly annoying tic. It seems as if every paragraph has an assiduous account, down to the halfpenny, of expenditures and of gifts that Edward gave to earls, family members, musicians and dancers he enjoyed, messengers who happened to be bringing him good news, anyone who happened to be passing by, etc. This tallying of monetary outlay can get farcically, absurdly detailed: “Edward gave jewels worth thirty pounds to the bride and groom, a roan-coloured palfrey horse worth twenty pounds to Margaret de Clare and expensive cloth worked with gold and pearls to her ladies, and provided the generous amount of seven pounds, ten shillings and six pence in pennies to be thrown over the heads of the bride and groom”; “Edward had already demonstrated his concern for Gaveston’s remains, spending, for example, £144 and fifteen shillings between 8 July 1312 and 7 July 1313, the sixth year of his reign. This included payment for 5,000 lbs of wax for candles to burn around the embalmed body”; “Edward gave Beche ‘a silver-gilt chased basin, with ewer to match,’ worth seven pounds, thirteen shillings and ten pence, on the Feast of the Circumcision, 1 January 1317. He also gave six shillings and eight pence to John, son of Alan of Scrooby, who officiated as boy-bishop in his chapel on St Nicholas’s Day, 6 December, and ten shillings to…”; “In November 1322, Edward purchased twelve ells of black and vermilion medley, at sixteen pence per ell, to make doublets (courtepies) for the squires of his chamber. He paid twenty-one pounds to…”; “Edward did his best to relax: he spent two pence playing dice, gave twenty shillings to twenty-two local men who played a ball game for his entertainment, and paid twelve pence to…” etc. etc. And it’s done so often here and seems so far outside of all proportion with the effect it might have had of characterizing Edward in some useful way that it just seems meant to show that the author has done her homework and knows where the account book is. If it sounds like I’m picking nits here, read a chapter and count the non-sequitur references to currency. Edward will gladly give you twopence halfpenny for each one.
Warner’s stated aim here is not “to whitewash a deeply flawed man or skate over his numerous errors and failings” but to “provide a more vivid and personal portrait of Edward than has been seen before, and to demolish some of the myths invented about him which have come to be widely and wrongly seen as historical fact.” Sometimes this feels right: the one thing everyone is sure they ‘know’ about Edward II is that he died by having a red-hot iron poker inserted via the, er, south portal, so the several pages devoted to exploding this myth are probably about right, but at other times—such as when Warner is convincing us that Edward II was in fact the real father of Isabella’s children and not Roger Mortimer—it seems disproportionate, and the work of correcting misconceptions begins to overshadow the project of painting that “more vivid and personal portrait” of Edward himself.
The book offers an admirably thorough and nuanced account of Edward’s famous “favourites,” most especially Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, and resists another tendency toward oversimplification in not simply acceding to the historiographic demands of the commonplace interpretation, which depends on underreading a lot of the evidence re: Edward and Isabella’s marriage, of these as simple romantic / sexual infatuations. One thing that emerges here is a sense that Edward II’s story changes a lot as prevailing views about non-heteronormative sexuality change. It is a homophobic society that will readily condemn Edward II as a weak, foppish fool by simplifying and vilifying his obvious love for Piers Gaveston. It is a society opening up to homosexuality and in need of what Warner calls a “gay icon” that works from a similarly simplified account of Edward’s relationship to Gaveston by celebrating it as obviously, purely and singularly a homosexual relationship and thus, among other things, being open to the clearly false notion that for this reason there’s somehow certainly no chance that Edward III or any of Isabella’s other children were legitimate. It is a society opening up to a broader spectrum of romantic and sexual ways of being that not only seems capable of acknowledging and accepting rather than simplifying away the complexities of Edward II’s case but also, it seems, coming closer to fourteenth-century notions of intimacy and the considerable overlap between homosexual and so-called homosocial relationships. Warner is open to the possibility that much more complex and idiosyncratic relationships existed in the “brotherhoods” of Edward and these haughty, arrogant, double-dealing and, in Despenser’s case, ultimately faithless friends, and this, along with excellent pen portraits of Gaveston, Despenser, Isabella and Roger Mortimer along the way, is among the book’s greatest strengths.
There are two big weaknesses. One is the fact that, having gone to so much trouble to introduce nuance and steer the lay reader of medieval history away from uncritical acceptance of the enormous, persistent and perception-warping myths about Edward II (that he was a wholly worthless incompetent sandwiched by two perfectly glorious kings; that he was nothing but a silly fop; that he was both simply and completely uninterested in his she-wolf wife and also simply and completely miserable to have been unloved and cuckolded by her; that he was murdered in a way that ensured his howls of agony would be heard across Gloucestershire but that his murderers chose their torturous method of symbolic execution—literally buggering the man to death by iron—to avoid leaving marks on his body and keep the foul play undetected), Warner then goes on to double down on a myth, or at least a view very much in the minority among historians, of her own in the last chapter: that Edward didn’t die in 1327 but, his death faked by several conspirators, instead he lived on in secret for many years. Not only does she lean hard on evidence that is no more than circumstantial to defend this view; she also frames it as simply true and handles the dominant view strangely dismissively. I’m very much a lay reader myself, but I know just enough to know that a great many historians don’t accept this conspiracy theory. This final rhetorical move seemed to me to call other aspects of the book into question.
The other problem here is a kind of bizarre and incredibly annoying tic. It seems as if every paragraph has an assiduous account, down to the halfpenny, of expenditures and of gifts that Edward gave to earls, family members, musicians and dancers he enjoyed, messengers who happened to be bringing him good news, anyone who happened to be passing by, etc. This tallying of monetary outlay can get farcically, absurdly detailed: “Edward gave jewels worth thirty pounds to the bride and groom, a roan-coloured palfrey horse worth twenty pounds to Margaret de Clare and expensive cloth worked with gold and pearls to her ladies, and provided the generous amount of seven pounds, ten shillings and six pence in pennies to be thrown over the heads of the bride and groom”; “Edward had already demonstrated his concern for Gaveston’s remains, spending, for example, £144 and fifteen shillings between 8 July 1312 and 7 July 1313, the sixth year of his reign. This included payment for 5,000 lbs of wax for candles to burn around the embalmed body”; “Edward gave Beche ‘a silver-gilt chased basin, with ewer to match,’ worth seven pounds, thirteen shillings and ten pence, on the Feast of the Circumcision, 1 January 1317. He also gave six shillings and eight pence to John, son of Alan of Scrooby, who officiated as boy-bishop in his chapel on St Nicholas’s Day, 6 December, and ten shillings to…”; “In November 1322, Edward purchased twelve ells of black and vermilion medley, at sixteen pence per ell, to make doublets (courtepies) for the squires of his chamber. He paid twenty-one pounds to…”; “Edward did his best to relax: he spent two pence playing dice, gave twenty shillings to twenty-two local men who played a ball game for his entertainment, and paid twelve pence to…” etc. etc. And it’s done so often here and seems so far outside of all proportion with the effect it might have had of characterizing Edward in some useful way that it just seems meant to show that the author has done her homework and knows where the account book is. If it sounds like I’m picking nits here, read a chapter and count the non-sequitur references to currency. Edward will gladly give you twopence halfpenny for each one.
February 22, 2017
I really, really enjoyed this book.
This book takes on a big task: the huge personality of Edward II, the countless myths about him and his reign, and even his mysterious afterlife. Kathryn Warner's work is carefully researched, and passionately written.
Here are a few things I am left with after finishing this excellent biography:
Edward II loved books (good man!), and forgot to return two books he had borrowed (tut tut!) (imagine the fees!).
It is interesting that Edward II did not like Hugh Despenser very much at first (ah, hindsight).
Edward II and Queen Isabella's relationship is a fascinating one, and so well written here. There is so much more to them than meets the modern eye. I think we are guilty of looking at their entire relationship knowing how it ended, but it was so much more than this, as this work shows.
Edward's afterlife is much more interesting than you would think (and thankfully, there isn't a poker in sight). In fact, I would say the final chapter of this work is one of the strongest, with the arguments for very convincingly argued.
All in all, I highly recommend this work. It's accessible, carefully researched, clearly written, and a joy to read.
This book takes on a big task: the huge personality of Edward II, the countless myths about him and his reign, and even his mysterious afterlife. Kathryn Warner's work is carefully researched, and passionately written.
Here are a few things I am left with after finishing this excellent biography:
Edward II loved books (good man!), and forgot to return two books he had borrowed (tut tut!) (imagine the fees!).
It is interesting that Edward II did not like Hugh Despenser very much at first (ah, hindsight).
Edward II and Queen Isabella's relationship is a fascinating one, and so well written here. There is so much more to them than meets the modern eye. I think we are guilty of looking at their entire relationship knowing how it ended, but it was so much more than this, as this work shows.
Edward's afterlife is much more interesting than you would think (and thankfully, there isn't a poker in sight). In fact, I would say the final chapter of this work is one of the strongest, with the arguments for very convincingly argued.
All in all, I highly recommend this work. It's accessible, carefully researched, clearly written, and a joy to read.
March 9, 2018
Edward II was probably born into the wrong family. He wasn’t particularly interested in the “appropriate” pursuits for a nobleman – much less the heir to the throne of England – and was ill-suited to leadership – uninterested and easily led and unmotivated except when it came to protecting his favourites, who tended to abuse their position and rule the country for him. He became the first English king to be deposed by his people and is probably best remembered today as the gay king who was killed by having a hot poker inserted into his anus. But the veracity of this legacy – while undeniably attractive for dramatic reasons – is highly questionable.
Kathryn Warner’s biography of this man, Edward II: The Unconventional King, gives the impression of brushing away myth and propaganda to refocus on the historical man and the evidence of his life and reign. This isn’t a whitewash, as Edward very much comes off as a flawed man responsible for his own problems, but it does rescue Edward from some of the slurs that history has heaped on him.
I really enjoyed this. As I’ve indicated, it feels like a fair account of his life, with Warner going back and re-analysing to contemporary records, rather than regurgitating the “accepted” story of Edward II’s life and downfall. This is the first time I’ve read a non-fiction book about Edward II, however, it feels very much as though Warner is cutting through the crap to get to the heart of who Edward was and what was going on in his kingdom. I really got a sense of who Edward was.
He appears, in her rendering, to be a complicated man. Temperamental, unconventional, highly emotional, unreliable, often self-deluded and easily led by his favourites. I’m not sure I would’ve liked to have known him, but I do feel sorry for him.
It feels Warner is fair to everyone involved – I came out of this very much interested in the story of Edward’s wife, Isabella. The picture Warner builds of Isabella is someone who is struggling to do something as her relationship with Edward, originally very affectionate, and the rule of the country disintegrates over time to tragic results. (I have Warner’s biography of her on order.)
Warner’s writing is clear and authoritative, but also readable. I never felt lost in the narrative by the numerous names and titles used, or in the events. Her arguments are compelling and well-reasoned, even the seemingly outlandish suggestion that Edward may have escaped and lived his life out in obscurity.
Altogether, this is my favourite kind of historical reference book. Well-written, compelling and yet entirely focused on the history, not the notion of writing an entertaining story.
Kathryn Warner’s biography of this man, Edward II: The Unconventional King, gives the impression of brushing away myth and propaganda to refocus on the historical man and the evidence of his life and reign. This isn’t a whitewash, as Edward very much comes off as a flawed man responsible for his own problems, but it does rescue Edward from some of the slurs that history has heaped on him.
I really enjoyed this. As I’ve indicated, it feels like a fair account of his life, with Warner going back and re-analysing to contemporary records, rather than regurgitating the “accepted” story of Edward II’s life and downfall. This is the first time I’ve read a non-fiction book about Edward II, however, it feels very much as though Warner is cutting through the crap to get to the heart of who Edward was and what was going on in his kingdom. I really got a sense of who Edward was.
He appears, in her rendering, to be a complicated man. Temperamental, unconventional, highly emotional, unreliable, often self-deluded and easily led by his favourites. I’m not sure I would’ve liked to have known him, but I do feel sorry for him.
It feels Warner is fair to everyone involved – I came out of this very much interested in the story of Edward’s wife, Isabella. The picture Warner builds of Isabella is someone who is struggling to do something as her relationship with Edward, originally very affectionate, and the rule of the country disintegrates over time to tragic results. (I have Warner’s biography of her on order.)
Warner’s writing is clear and authoritative, but also readable. I never felt lost in the narrative by the numerous names and titles used, or in the events. Her arguments are compelling and well-reasoned, even the seemingly outlandish suggestion that Edward may have escaped and lived his life out in obscurity.
Altogether, this is my favourite kind of historical reference book. Well-written, compelling and yet entirely focused on the history, not the notion of writing an entertaining story.
April 26, 2022
This was extremely readable and well paced. I was worried because I had seen reviews complaining about the level of detail throwing off the pacing. I did not find that to be the case. That said this is a scholarly biography and not the fashionable biographies with questionable claims and few sources. Those can be fun to read but rarely offer real research and tend to continue popular misconceptions.
My only disagreement would be that Edward II did not die when he was deposed. I don't know about that but I plan to read this author's scholarly work and perhaps I'll be convinced.
Loved this!
My only disagreement would be that Edward II did not die when he was deposed. I don't know about that but I plan to read this author's scholarly work and perhaps I'll be convinced.
Loved this!
wish-list
July 12, 2014FROM THE AUTHOR Posted: 11 Jul 2014 10:15 AM PDT:
Description from the publisher: He is one of the most reviled English kings in history. He drove his kingdom to the brink of civil war a dozen times in less than twenty years. He allowed his male lovers to rule the kingdom. He led a great army to the most ignominious military defeat in English history. His wife took a lover and invaded his kingdom, and he ended his reign wandering around Wales with a handful of followers, pursued by an army. He was the first king of England forced to abdicate his throne. Popular legend has it that he died screaming impaled on a red-hot poker, but in fact the time and place of his death are shrouded in mystery. His life reads like an Elizabethan tragedy, full of passionate doomed love, bloody revenge, jealousy, hatred, vindictiveness and obsession. He was Edward II, and this book tells his story. The focus here is on his relationships with his male 'favourites' and his disaffected wife, on his unorthodox lifestyle and hobbies, and on the mystery surrounding his death. Using almost exclusively fourteenth-century sources and Edward's own letters and speeches wherever possible, Kathryn Warner strips away the myths which have been created about him over the centuries, and provides a far more accurate and vivid picture of him than has previously been seen.
Pretty excited about this one. Even though I have been following the blog so am pretty much aware of just what will be included, it will be rather lovely to read it in one place instead of a snippet at a time. You may remember Kathryn from those Bannockburn vimeos* I posted last about week.
*Part one is here: http://vimeo.com/96618054
Part two is here: http://vimeo.com/96892814
"I'm very pleased and proud to announce that my book Edward II: The Unconventional King will be published on 28 October! It's with Amberley Publishing, is 336 pages long and will include a foreword by Ian Mortimer. I'm keen to demolish all the myths about Edward so often repeated as fact, but absolutely don't want to whitewash him and gloss over all his many faults and errors. It's a chronological narrative of his reign and what happened to him afterwards, with particular focus on the personal, as there are plenty of books already about the politics of Edward's time. I want to give the reader a far more vivid and accurate account of Edward than has been seen before." - Kathryn Warner
Description from the publisher: He is one of the most reviled English kings in history. He drove his kingdom to the brink of civil war a dozen times in less than twenty years. He allowed his male lovers to rule the kingdom. He led a great army to the most ignominious military defeat in English history. His wife took a lover and invaded his kingdom, and he ended his reign wandering around Wales with a handful of followers, pursued by an army. He was the first king of England forced to abdicate his throne. Popular legend has it that he died screaming impaled on a red-hot poker, but in fact the time and place of his death are shrouded in mystery. His life reads like an Elizabethan tragedy, full of passionate doomed love, bloody revenge, jealousy, hatred, vindictiveness and obsession. He was Edward II, and this book tells his story. The focus here is on his relationships with his male 'favourites' and his disaffected wife, on his unorthodox lifestyle and hobbies, and on the mystery surrounding his death. Using almost exclusively fourteenth-century sources and Edward's own letters and speeches wherever possible, Kathryn Warner strips away the myths which have been created about him over the centuries, and provides a far more accurate and vivid picture of him than has previously been seen.
Pretty excited about this one. Even though I have been following the blog so am pretty much aware of just what will be included, it will be rather lovely to read it in one place instead of a snippet at a time. You may remember Kathryn from those Bannockburn vimeos* I posted last about week. *Part one is here: http://vimeo.com/96618054
Part two is here: http://vimeo.com/96892814
December 3, 2014
Edward II was a deeply flawed king. In her book Edward II: The Unconventional King, Kathryn Warner doesn’t attempt to hide that fact. However, she also uses meticulous research to debunk myriad myths about Edward II, including the malarkey that he was killed via a hot poker in the rectum.
Edward II had a rough spot in history even without being completely unsuited to medieval kingship. He was sandwiched between his father, Edward I Hammer of the Scots, and his son Edward III -- arguably the most magnificent of the Plantagenet kings. There was almost no way for Edward II not to be overshadowed by kings both fore and aft.
Warner also critiqued the assumption that Edward was “gay” as we understand it today. Yes, Edward loved at last two men with the emotional devotion of a spouse. Nevertheless, Edward had for legitimate children and one by-blow; he clearly had sex with women. I have no doubt that Edward was “in love” with his favorites, Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, but whether or not that meant they had sex is something no one can prove or disprove conclusively. Even if he did have a physical relationship with his favorites, he would fit into the category of bisexual rather than exclusively homosexual.
Warner also dropped a bombshell that had already detonated among Edwardian scholars but whose shockwaves hadn’t reached the general public yet. It is almost certain that Edward II was not killed in England, but was instead declared dead and sent into exile/refuge in Italy. The evidence is lavish and well presented, and some additional scholarly fact checking on my part supported her data to the hilt.
I also liked the fact that Warner fiercely defended Edward from the accusations that he was a limp-wristed & lily-livered ninny. Too often in both history and historical fiction Edward’s mistakes have been chalked up to stupidity, his defeats accounted for by cowardice, and his general ineptitude pawned off with homophobic snickering at his enthrallment by Gaveston and Despenser. Warner saves Edward from calumny without sacrificing veracity, and places his sexuality in its rightful place as just one facet of his character and reign.
This book is a great read for anyone who delights in fact over fiction, truth more than tall-tales, and accuracy rather than aspersions.
Edward II had a rough spot in history even without being completely unsuited to medieval kingship. He was sandwiched between his father, Edward I Hammer of the Scots, and his son Edward III -- arguably the most magnificent of the Plantagenet kings. There was almost no way for Edward II not to be overshadowed by kings both fore and aft.
Warner also critiqued the assumption that Edward was “gay” as we understand it today. Yes, Edward loved at last two men with the emotional devotion of a spouse. Nevertheless, Edward had for legitimate children and one by-blow; he clearly had sex with women. I have no doubt that Edward was “in love” with his favorites, Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, but whether or not that meant they had sex is something no one can prove or disprove conclusively. Even if he did have a physical relationship with his favorites, he would fit into the category of bisexual rather than exclusively homosexual.
Warner also dropped a bombshell that had already detonated among Edwardian scholars but whose shockwaves hadn’t reached the general public yet. It is almost certain that Edward II was not killed in England, but was instead declared dead and sent into exile/refuge in Italy. The evidence is lavish and well presented, and some additional scholarly fact checking on my part supported her data to the hilt.
I also liked the fact that Warner fiercely defended Edward from the accusations that he was a limp-wristed & lily-livered ninny. Too often in both history and historical fiction Edward’s mistakes have been chalked up to stupidity, his defeats accounted for by cowardice, and his general ineptitude pawned off with homophobic snickering at his enthrallment by Gaveston and Despenser. Warner saves Edward from calumny without sacrificing veracity, and places his sexuality in its rightful place as just one facet of his character and reign.
This book is a great read for anyone who delights in fact over fiction, truth more than tall-tales, and accuracy rather than aspersions.
February 20, 2018
I had mentioned in another review that I know very little about Edward II or his reign, except for the obvious, that he was homosexual. And that I wanted to learn more about this time period, and this king. I get the feeling after having read this book, that not a lot of documentation remains that wasn't to do with account books. That the scribes/monks/chroniclers of the time period could look at the same incident and come to completely different conclusions. And finally that Ms Warner definitely had her favorites in this British Opera.
Let me begin by saying that I am not from the UK. That my antipathy towards Hugh Despenser the Younger is not what it might be from someone who grew up hearing about his vile deeds in history classes for most of their youth. He reminded me of MANY medieval real life characters - say like Edward I, who extorted his nobles, and the church for money to pay for his never ending wars - actually paupering some of the less wealthy knights, or actually taking their land from them, and had women young and old placed in cages which hung outdoors to punish their men (Robert Bruce and his followers) for YEARS, before they were released. Then there is King John. But getting back to Edward II's reign, Lancaster (Thomas) and Mortimer were not exactly saints. A time period in history where ruthless men took what they wanted/could to build their dynasties with little regard for others.
Though there seems to be no hard evidence that Edward II was homosexual (and actually I'd say bi-sexual) nor that he had intimate relations with his favorites, I personally think we can assume that he did. With Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger being the two men in Edward's life that he loved the best/most. That Gaveston was also probably gay I don't doubt, that Despenser wasn't I also don't doubt, but who knows? It was a different time.
I think the real tragedy of Edward II is not that he was inept, and stupid, and couldn't handle the day to day responsibilities of kingmanship - it's that he couldn't be bothered because none of that interested him. According to Warner, and the chroniclers of the time, when Edward II did bother to take control, he was articulate, fast on his feet, and intelligent. That's tragic - he had the ability and talent, but he couldn't be bothered because it didn't interest him.
He also appeared to be one of those people for whom the phrase "love is blind" applies because even when gently warned by Pembroke (Pembroke - in this real life drama you are my HERO) that maybe he should not give so much to just one man, Edward refused to listen. Edward II refused to listen to anyone but the one he loved with disastrous results.
And though Warner clearly feels that Queen Isabelle was a victim, I don't. I think it's clear that she used her son Edward III to get the throne for herself and Mortimer while Edward III was in his minority. That she may still have had feelings for Edward II - who knows. But she was clearly not an innocent victim. And yes, she did put up with a lot from Edward II and his favorite Despenser.
I think this is a good biography, and I enjoyed reading it. But yet again, it has brought up for me, more questions than answers.
Let me begin by saying that I am not from the UK. That my antipathy towards Hugh Despenser the Younger is not what it might be from someone who grew up hearing about his vile deeds in history classes for most of their youth. He reminded me of MANY medieval real life characters - say like Edward I, who extorted his nobles, and the church for money to pay for his never ending wars - actually paupering some of the less wealthy knights, or actually taking their land from them, and had women young and old placed in cages which hung outdoors to punish their men (Robert Bruce and his followers) for YEARS, before they were released. Then there is King John. But getting back to Edward II's reign, Lancaster (Thomas) and Mortimer were not exactly saints. A time period in history where ruthless men took what they wanted/could to build their dynasties with little regard for others.
Though there seems to be no hard evidence that Edward II was homosexual (and actually I'd say bi-sexual) nor that he had intimate relations with his favorites, I personally think we can assume that he did. With Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger being the two men in Edward's life that he loved the best/most. That Gaveston was also probably gay I don't doubt, that Despenser wasn't I also don't doubt, but who knows? It was a different time.
I think the real tragedy of Edward II is not that he was inept, and stupid, and couldn't handle the day to day responsibilities of kingmanship - it's that he couldn't be bothered because none of that interested him. According to Warner, and the chroniclers of the time, when Edward II did bother to take control, he was articulate, fast on his feet, and intelligent. That's tragic - he had the ability and talent, but he couldn't be bothered because it didn't interest him.
He also appeared to be one of those people for whom the phrase "love is blind" applies because even when gently warned by Pembroke (Pembroke - in this real life drama you are my HERO) that maybe he should not give so much to just one man, Edward refused to listen. Edward II refused to listen to anyone but the one he loved with disastrous results.
And though Warner clearly feels that Queen Isabelle was a victim, I don't. I think it's clear that she used her son Edward III to get the throne for herself and Mortimer while Edward III was in his minority. That she may still have had feelings for Edward II - who knows. But she was clearly not an innocent victim. And yes, she did put up with a lot from Edward II and his favorite Despenser.
I think this is a good biography, and I enjoyed reading it. But yet again, it has brought up for me, more questions than answers.
October 30, 2014
This book presents an honest portrait of a man, who became king almost by accident, who never wanted to be a king and who never became a king, at least in an conventional sense.
Edward II was a man to whom personal loyalty became before the realm, who liked to joke and have some parties, who liked arts and acting, who was at ease with ordinary people, swam in the rivers and did all sorts of non-royal things. Which naturally was not that cool in medieval England.
He was more than likely a bi-sexual, who loved his favorite knight, his wife and ended up being locked up by her. He lead a huge army to Scotland despite almost non-existing the baronial support, fought bravely personally, and lost the battle in the most humiliating way.
Kathryn Warner brings Edward II alive based on original documents and materiel of that age and lets that tell us what kind of a man this king was and why he was a failure as a king. It was not because he was stupid, lazy, coward, a sissy, but because he was not one at heart and never wanted to be one.
Well written biography!!
Edward II was a man to whom personal loyalty became before the realm, who liked to joke and have some parties, who liked arts and acting, who was at ease with ordinary people, swam in the rivers and did all sorts of non-royal things. Which naturally was not that cool in medieval England.
He was more than likely a bi-sexual, who loved his favorite knight, his wife and ended up being locked up by her. He lead a huge army to Scotland despite almost non-existing the baronial support, fought bravely personally, and lost the battle in the most humiliating way.
Kathryn Warner brings Edward II alive based on original documents and materiel of that age and lets that tell us what kind of a man this king was and why he was a failure as a king. It was not because he was stupid, lazy, coward, a sissy, but because he was not one at heart and never wanted to be one.
Well written biography!!
July 29, 2015
A very enjoyable biography. Warner's enthusiasm for her subject shines through, turning what could have been a dry-as-dust academic tome into a page-turning appreciation of one of England's most controversial kings. Yet this is a work of scholarship, too. Warner's research is impeccable, yet her writing carries us along due to her almost fan-girlish devotion to her subject.
May 3, 2019
interesting and detailed book about Edward II and how his reign before his son took power was conflict with his nobles
August 22, 2021
Unlike his father, the great warrior and crusader Edward I, Edward II was cut from a different cloth. A man whose obstinacy and short sightedness brought a country to its knees more than once was also a man who loved deeply, had an affinity for common pursuits, and had the political aptitude of his father when he chose to use it. Truly a man of contradictions, as elucidated wonderfully by Katherine Warner. A fascinating book.
March 27, 2017
What an excellent biography! I discovered this book as I was searching for information on Edward's queen Isabella, after reading a rather one-sided biography of her. It is always maddening when an historian begins writing a biography with an agenda. That is to say they use the sources to tell the story they want told, rather than following them to see what emerges. Kathryn Warner did not do this. Her agenda appears to have been to tell the story of EdwardII's life, warts and all. And believe me, there are warts.
Edward II had some rather alarming aspects to his personality. He had the notorious Plantanganet temper coupled with a severe stubborn streak. Add to that his utter infatuation with his 'favourites', notably Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, and his inability to moderate his own behaviour, thereby creating the very situation he most hopes to avoid, and you have a recipe for a disastrous reign. And it was disastrous. So much so that he was deposed by his French queen and her lover in favour of his eldest son who then became Edward III. As a result the English monarchy was never the same, with his grandson Richard II's reign giving rise to the Wars of the Roses. The incredible thing is that after reading this book I've found I have rather a soft spot for Edward.
Ms. Warner leaves nothing out, but her approach is such that even the scathing criticism is written with compassion. I don't mean to say she white washes any of his transgressions, quite the opposite in fact. It's more that she doesn't make excuses for the things he did wrong, nor put blame on him where none is due. Ms. Warner neither makes excuses for Edwards many faults, not does she sanctify those around him who certainly played a role in the disaster that became his reign. I'm left feeling empathy for Edward and the understanding that of his many faults, his utter dependence on his few favourites was by far the worst.
There are a couple of looming questions regarding Edward II: Was he a homosexual and was he killed with a red hot poker? Was he even killed at all, or did he escape to Italy and live out his days in prayerful contemplation as a hermit? All of these issues are explored, some in greater detail than others, and, while she clearly has an opinion, she also allows us to form our own. I didn't feel manipulated to believe one theory over another, but was shown the facts as she sees them and quietly left to make up my own mind. Amazing. I sincerely hope this is not the last we hear from Kathryn Warner. I found this to be a very balanced view of a controversial king.
As for whether he ultimately lived...I'm not entirely convinced, but Ms. Warner makes a credible argument and I'm left thinking it just may have been possible.
I highly recommend it, especially for those interested in this period of medieval England.
(Edit: This is an updated version of my review on Amazon. After reading both, I realised this more completely articulates my thoughts on this wonderful book.)
Edward II had some rather alarming aspects to his personality. He had the notorious Plantanganet temper coupled with a severe stubborn streak. Add to that his utter infatuation with his 'favourites', notably Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, and his inability to moderate his own behaviour, thereby creating the very situation he most hopes to avoid, and you have a recipe for a disastrous reign. And it was disastrous. So much so that he was deposed by his French queen and her lover in favour of his eldest son who then became Edward III. As a result the English monarchy was never the same, with his grandson Richard II's reign giving rise to the Wars of the Roses. The incredible thing is that after reading this book I've found I have rather a soft spot for Edward.
Ms. Warner leaves nothing out, but her approach is such that even the scathing criticism is written with compassion. I don't mean to say she white washes any of his transgressions, quite the opposite in fact. It's more that she doesn't make excuses for the things he did wrong, nor put blame on him where none is due. Ms. Warner neither makes excuses for Edwards many faults, not does she sanctify those around him who certainly played a role in the disaster that became his reign. I'm left feeling empathy for Edward and the understanding that of his many faults, his utter dependence on his few favourites was by far the worst.
There are a couple of looming questions regarding Edward II: Was he a homosexual and was he killed with a red hot poker? Was he even killed at all, or did he escape to Italy and live out his days in prayerful contemplation as a hermit? All of these issues are explored, some in greater detail than others, and, while she clearly has an opinion, she also allows us to form our own. I didn't feel manipulated to believe one theory over another, but was shown the facts as she sees them and quietly left to make up my own mind. Amazing. I sincerely hope this is not the last we hear from Kathryn Warner. I found this to be a very balanced view of a controversial king.
As for whether he ultimately lived...I'm not entirely convinced, but Ms. Warner makes a credible argument and I'm left thinking it just may have been possible.
I highly recommend it, especially for those interested in this period of medieval England.
(Edit: This is an updated version of my review on Amazon. After reading both, I realised this more completely articulates my thoughts on this wonderful book.)
November 18, 2014
Source: Free pdf from Amberley in exchange for a review.
Edward Caernarfon was born on April 25, 1284, at Caernarfon Castle in Wales.
He died September 20 or 21, 1327, at Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire, England.
Summary:
Edward II is hedged between two other kings named Edward who had legacies of power and popularity. Edward II's legacy was his tawdry relationships with male favorites. Edward II was tall and handsome, but he did not have the ambition to be a king. He became a king because he was his father's only surviving son and heir. Edward was a man and king of discordance. He had a personality that displayed fits of rage. He was a man who held grudges and did not forgive. However, he had moments of tenderness and empathy. He showed love and affection for his wife. Nevertheless, he had male favorites who were probably his homosexual lovers. His life and reign is an anomaly. He is a curiosity. In the introduction written by Ian Mortimer, he explains, "But I still maintain that in a true biography-as opposed to a history book about a reign-it is important to present not only what a man thought of himself but his awareness of what others thought of him."
My Thoughts:
Before reading Edward II, my knowledge of him was limited. I love historical based films, yet they stray from fact most of the time in order to entertain. I appreciate historians who write books with the goal of facts backed-up from solid documented sources.
I have mixed emotions in regards to Edward II. I have empathy for Edward, I'm sad for the circumstances that caused hardship in his life. But I also feel he lacked a judicious and tactful nature. I wonder if he suffered from what we know as bi-polar? His fits of rage and bursts of spending are symptoms of the disorder.
Edward II began with a strong and detailed introduction written by Ian Mortimer. I appreciate his stage setting of the books goals. Mortimer warned of the, "Danger of emotion seeping into the narrative, and obscure the contradictions of the character." I believe this is a warning for both the writer and the reader.
I enjoyed reading Kathryn Warner's balanced view of Edward II. She carefully weighed other historian's views. I was able to see Edward as the person he was and not just an obscure king. There are still mysteries surrounding Edward's life, but I feel Kathryn Warner's Edward II has represented his character and life in vivid detail.
Several points in the book are studied.
Edward's relationship with Piers Gaveston.
Edward's relationship with Hugh Despenser,
Edward's marriage and children.
The wars with Scotland.
The court life of Edward II, pertaining to servants, food, and clothing.
Isabella's great betrayal.
Roger Mortimer.
Additional points that I enjoyed reading.
Edward's confinement at Berkeley Castle.
The plots to help Edward escape.
Edward's (morbid) death in 1327. The pros and cons of believing the "death event." Is it a myth or true?
Did Edward escape death in 1327 to live a longer life?
Edward Caernarfon was born on April 25, 1284, at Caernarfon Castle in Wales.
He died September 20 or 21, 1327, at Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire, England.
Summary:
Edward II is hedged between two other kings named Edward who had legacies of power and popularity. Edward II's legacy was his tawdry relationships with male favorites. Edward II was tall and handsome, but he did not have the ambition to be a king. He became a king because he was his father's only surviving son and heir. Edward was a man and king of discordance. He had a personality that displayed fits of rage. He was a man who held grudges and did not forgive. However, he had moments of tenderness and empathy. He showed love and affection for his wife. Nevertheless, he had male favorites who were probably his homosexual lovers. His life and reign is an anomaly. He is a curiosity. In the introduction written by Ian Mortimer, he explains, "But I still maintain that in a true biography-as opposed to a history book about a reign-it is important to present not only what a man thought of himself but his awareness of what others thought of him."
My Thoughts:
Before reading Edward II, my knowledge of him was limited. I love historical based films, yet they stray from fact most of the time in order to entertain. I appreciate historians who write books with the goal of facts backed-up from solid documented sources.
I have mixed emotions in regards to Edward II. I have empathy for Edward, I'm sad for the circumstances that caused hardship in his life. But I also feel he lacked a judicious and tactful nature. I wonder if he suffered from what we know as bi-polar? His fits of rage and bursts of spending are symptoms of the disorder.
Edward II began with a strong and detailed introduction written by Ian Mortimer. I appreciate his stage setting of the books goals. Mortimer warned of the, "Danger of emotion seeping into the narrative, and obscure the contradictions of the character." I believe this is a warning for both the writer and the reader.
I enjoyed reading Kathryn Warner's balanced view of Edward II. She carefully weighed other historian's views. I was able to see Edward as the person he was and not just an obscure king. There are still mysteries surrounding Edward's life, but I feel Kathryn Warner's Edward II has represented his character and life in vivid detail.
Several points in the book are studied.
Edward's relationship with Piers Gaveston.
Edward's relationship with Hugh Despenser,
Edward's marriage and children.
The wars with Scotland.
The court life of Edward II, pertaining to servants, food, and clothing.
Isabella's great betrayal.
Roger Mortimer.
Additional points that I enjoyed reading.
Edward's confinement at Berkeley Castle.
The plots to help Edward escape.
Edward's (morbid) death in 1327. The pros and cons of believing the "death event." Is it a myth or true?
Did Edward escape death in 1327 to live a longer life?
May 11, 2020
(Ukrainian below/українською нижче)
"…he lamented his failings, but could not be other than he was."
How much did I love this book? You might want to sit down for this, as it's a bit of a yarn.
It's five stars, by the way, that's how much I loved the book, and if you're not interested in its subject, let me just say that it's excellent for what it is, and end the review here.
However; I have a strange, longstanding interest in English royalty.
Why would that be? Where did it come from? What, after all, would I know of England? Well, the usual, I suppose, but not much beyond that. Massive gaps, punctuated by: [King Arthur]. The Norman Conquest. Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, something something Magna Carta, [the Robin Hood legends], something something France, something something Agincourt, something The Great English Warbow, something something wool, something Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, something something Oliver Cromwell, Parliament, Civil War, something something Madness of King George, THE INDIES, Industrial Revolution, Dickens, Queen Victoria, the Boer War (with the simple, honest Boers, and the eeeeeeeevil English, thanks, Louis Bussenard). Of Scotland, alas, far less than even that.
With all this, it's a wee bit surprising, isn't it, that I'm as fascinated as I am by medieval English royalty. I mean maybe - maybe - it's something to do with my own mother being an archaeologist studying (as in going there every summer while you're growing up) the seat of a medieval (albeit Ruthenian) principality.
Fine. But still. How much, in all this, did I know about Edward I or Robert the Bruce, or William Wallace, or Edward II, or Piers Gaveston, or Isabella?
Well, very little. Very little indeed, until Braveheart came out - but not nothing.
Attentive readers of late 19th-century Ukrainian literature (made myself laugh there) will know that the great Lesia Ukrainka has in her oeuvre a little work called Robert (the) Bruce, the King of Scotland. It's not taught in schools - let's face it, it's not The Forest Song or another of her great works - but I did stumble upon it and read it (and loved it, at least the story) as a child.
So I did know that there once was a Scottish king named "Robert Bruce"(*) who fought the English for independence. William Wallace (as I found out later, having checked the poem after Braveheart) is mentioned exactly once (EDIT: actually I just checked again and see no mention of Wallace).
Then, of course, I see "Braveheart." I know now how much ("reactionary Catholic bigot" and all around idiot) Mel Gibson butchered the story. Much has been said and written about all that, my two favorite pieces being A. E. Larsen's Braveheart is Actually a Porn Film (CW: discussions of rape), and comedian Stewart Lee's bit in Glasgow ("you all know [as well as I do] that Braveheart is the shittest film ever made… directed by the reactionary Catholic bigot Mel Gibson, and ... full of basic, fundamental historical errors, which insult your race"), and that's before we even mention the subject of kilts.
But I loved Braveheart when it came out, and for a while Braveheart's presentation was my idea of "what happened." I still think of those actors whenever I think or read about Edward I or Edward II, or Isabella, or Robert Bruce. I mean, I found out eventually that actually William Wallace died two years before 11-year old Isabella married Edward II (so no, they never met, they were never lovers, and Wallace wasn't the father of her child; again, she was 9 when he died, ick).
So all of that is in the back of my mind for years, and then suddenly I stumble first upon the aforementioned "Braveheart is a Porn Film" essay, and then Kathryn Warner's whole entire BLOG dedicated to Edward II. I think it was the hilarious Isabella of France and the Support Group for Tragic Queens that somehow floated across my radar, but then I started reading more, finding out more and more about Edward II..., and then I see she's written several! books! on the subject, oh my!
So here I am. All of that was just to say that it was the perfect book for me. I was absolutely predisposed to loving it, so I have no idea how it will read to somebody who doesn't care. Well researched, well written, SUDDEN PLOT TWIST (spoiler) in the end... for me it's an easy five stars. I loved this portrait of "the unconventional king."
(*) whom my dad once accidentally christened "Bruce Willis," as in "What was the name of that Scottish king? Was it Bruce Willis?" and now I think "Bruce Willis" is a lovely amalgamation of "Robert the Bruce" and "William Wallace."
SWITCHING TO UKRAINIAN HERE TO SAY ROUGHLY THE SAME THING / ДАЛІ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ
"Вже буде літ п'ятсот тому, -
На край шотландський вільний
Війною йшов король Едвард,
Англійський владар сильний."
Уважні читачі української літератури (хе-хе) знатимуть, що в Лесі Українки є невеличка поемка Роберт Брюс, король шотландський. Її не вчать у школі, вона аж ніяк не відображає повноти Лесиного таланту, це вам не "Кассандра", не "Одержима", не "На полі крові" і не "Лісова пісня", але вона є, і йдеться там про невдалі спроби Роберта Брюса воювати проти Едварда I за незалежність Шотландії, і відчай, і випадок з павуком, і ще одну спробу, і навіть один раз згадується Воллес (упс, тепер передивився - ні, не згадується).
Це більш-менш все, що мені було відомо про короля Едварда (Першого, не Другого) аж доки не вийшов фільм "Хоробре серце." ("Хоробре серце," звичайно, створило таке враження, що й досі, коли думаю або читаю про цих історичних персонажів, то уявляю собі Петріка МакҐуена, Пітера Генлі, Софі Марсо і Енґуса МакФад'єна. І так, Мела Ґібсона.)
Вже значно пізніше з різних джерел, зокрема в інтернеті, я довідався, яких неймовірних дрів Мел Ґібсон наламав у тому фільмі з історією, характеризацією персонажів, зокрема Едварда II, хронологією і елементарним фактажем… зокрема, прочитав "порнографічну" інтерпретацію "Хороброго серця" у виконанні Ендрю Ларсена (*застереження*: в есеї обговорюється зґвалтування) і побачив виступ (одного з моїх улюблених англійських коміків) Стюарта Лі в Ґлазґо.
Десь тоді само я натрапив на блог, ЦІЛИЙ БЛОГ історикині Кетрін Ворнер, присвячений Едварду II. Почалося все із жартівливих постів на кшталт Ізабелла Французька і група підтримки трагічних королев (агонь, дуже раджу), ну а далі просто з'ясувалося, що вона написала про Едварда II книжку, і я зрозумів (ще трохи розпаливши апетит блогом), що мушу її прочитати. Та й таке.
Тож "об'єктивної" рецензії від мене не чекайте - ця книжка вже за задумом мала мені сподобатися. Якщо вас не цікавить Англія кінця XIII-початку XIV століття з її "трьома Едвардами," то вам мабуть буде нудно. А як на мене, то це дуже добрий і врівноважений портрет "нетрадиційного короля" Едварда II - зовсім не такого, яким його зобразив Мел Ґібсон і низка письменників/письменниць XX століття, і не зовсім такого, яким його зобразила низка неприхильних до нього хронік.
"…he lamented his failings, but could not be other than he was."
How much did I love this book? You might want to sit down for this, as it's a bit of a yarn.
It's five stars, by the way, that's how much I loved the book, and if you're not interested in its subject, let me just say that it's excellent for what it is, and end the review here.
However; I have a strange, longstanding interest in English royalty.
Why would that be? Where did it come from? What, after all, would I know of England? Well, the usual, I suppose, but not much beyond that. Massive gaps, punctuated by: [King Arthur]. The Norman Conquest. Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, something something Magna Carta, [the Robin Hood legends], something something France, something something Agincourt, something The Great English Warbow, something something wool, something Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, something something Oliver Cromwell, Parliament, Civil War, something something Madness of King George, THE INDIES, Industrial Revolution, Dickens, Queen Victoria, the Boer War (with the simple, honest Boers, and the eeeeeeeevil English, thanks, Louis Bussenard). Of Scotland, alas, far less than even that.
With all this, it's a wee bit surprising, isn't it, that I'm as fascinated as I am by medieval English royalty. I mean maybe - maybe - it's something to do with my own mother being an archaeologist studying (as in going there every summer while you're growing up) the seat of a medieval (albeit Ruthenian) principality.
Fine. But still. How much, in all this, did I know about Edward I or Robert the Bruce, or William Wallace, or Edward II, or Piers Gaveston, or Isabella?
Well, very little. Very little indeed, until Braveheart came out - but not nothing.
Attentive readers of late 19th-century Ukrainian literature (made myself laugh there) will know that the great Lesia Ukrainka has in her oeuvre a little work called Robert (the) Bruce, the King of Scotland. It's not taught in schools - let's face it, it's not The Forest Song or another of her great works - but I did stumble upon it and read it (and loved it, at least the story) as a child.
So I did know that there once was a Scottish king named "Robert Bruce"(*) who fought the English for independence. William Wallace (as I found out later, having checked the poem after Braveheart) is mentioned exactly once (EDIT: actually I just checked again and see no mention of Wallace).
Then, of course, I see "Braveheart." I know now how much ("reactionary Catholic bigot" and all around idiot) Mel Gibson butchered the story. Much has been said and written about all that, my two favorite pieces being A. E. Larsen's Braveheart is Actually a Porn Film (CW: discussions of rape), and comedian Stewart Lee's bit in Glasgow ("you all know [as well as I do] that Braveheart is the shittest film ever made… directed by the reactionary Catholic bigot Mel Gibson, and ... full of basic, fundamental historical errors, which insult your race"), and that's before we even mention the subject of kilts.
But I loved Braveheart when it came out, and for a while Braveheart's presentation was my idea of "what happened." I still think of those actors whenever I think or read about Edward I or Edward II, or Isabella, or Robert Bruce. I mean, I found out eventually that actually William Wallace died two years before 11-year old Isabella married Edward II (so no, they never met, they were never lovers, and Wallace wasn't the father of her child; again, she was 9 when he died, ick).
So all of that is in the back of my mind for years, and then suddenly I stumble first upon the aforementioned "Braveheart is a Porn Film" essay, and then Kathryn Warner's whole entire BLOG dedicated to Edward II. I think it was the hilarious Isabella of France and the Support Group for Tragic Queens that somehow floated across my radar, but then I started reading more, finding out more and more about Edward II..., and then I see she's written several! books! on the subject, oh my!
So here I am. All of that was just to say that it was the perfect book for me. I was absolutely predisposed to loving it, so I have no idea how it will read to somebody who doesn't care. Well researched, well written, SUDDEN PLOT TWIST (spoiler) in the end... for me it's an easy five stars. I loved this portrait of "the unconventional king."
(*) whom my dad once accidentally christened "Bruce Willis," as in "What was the name of that Scottish king? Was it Bruce Willis?" and now I think "Bruce Willis" is a lovely amalgamation of "Robert the Bruce" and "William Wallace."
SWITCHING TO UKRAINIAN HERE TO SAY ROUGHLY THE SAME THING / ДАЛІ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ
"Вже буде літ п'ятсот тому, -
На край шотландський вільний
Війною йшов король Едвард,
Англійський владар сильний."
Уважні читачі української літератури (хе-хе) знатимуть, що в Лесі Українки є невеличка поемка Роберт Брюс, король шотландський. Її не вчать у школі, вона аж ніяк не відображає повноти Лесиного таланту, це вам не "Кассандра", не "Одержима", не "На полі крові" і не "Лісова пісня", але вона є, і йдеться там про невдалі спроби Роберта Брюса воювати проти Едварда I за незалежність Шотландії, і відчай, і випадок з павуком, і ще одну спробу, і навіть один раз згадується Воллес (упс, тепер передивився - ні, не згадується).
Це більш-менш все, що мені було відомо про короля Едварда (Першого, не Другого) аж доки не вийшов фільм "Хоробре серце." ("Хоробре серце," звичайно, створило таке враження, що й досі, коли думаю або читаю про цих історичних персонажів, то уявляю собі Петріка МакҐуена, Пітера Генлі, Софі Марсо і Енґуса МакФад'єна. І так, Мела Ґібсона.)
Вже значно пізніше з різних джерел, зокрема в інтернеті, я довідався, яких неймовірних дрів Мел Ґібсон наламав у тому фільмі з історією, характеризацією персонажів, зокрема Едварда II, хронологією і елементарним фактажем… зокрема, прочитав "порнографічну" інтерпретацію "Хороброго серця" у виконанні Ендрю Ларсена (*застереження*: в есеї обговорюється зґвалтування) і побачив виступ (одного з моїх улюблених англійських коміків) Стюарта Лі в Ґлазґо.
Десь тоді само я натрапив на блог, ЦІЛИЙ БЛОГ історикині Кетрін Ворнер, присвячений Едварду II. Почалося все із жартівливих постів на кшталт Ізабелла Французька і група підтримки трагічних королев (агонь, дуже раджу), ну а далі просто з'ясувалося, що вона написала про Едварда II книжку, і я зрозумів (ще трохи розпаливши апетит блогом), що мушу її прочитати. Та й таке.
Тож "об'єктивної" рецензії від мене не чекайте - ця книжка вже за задумом мала мені сподобатися. Якщо вас не цікавить Англія кінця XIII-початку XIV століття з її "трьома Едвардами," то вам мабуть буде нудно. А як на мене, то це дуже добрий і врівноважений портрет "нетрадиційного короля" Едварда II - зовсім не такого, яким його зобразив Мел Ґібсон і низка письменників/письменниць XX століття, і не зовсім такого, яким його зобразила низка неприхильних до нього хронік.
June 23, 2017
A book that is rather more successful than it's subject ; balanced and very well evidenced portrait of an inept but not evil king and the strange mystery of whether he died not - yep the red hot poker up the bum story is unlikely which is a shame as after the week I've just had I was quite looking forward to that.
Joking of course .
Joking of course .
June 18, 2020
I thoroughly enjoyed Kathryn Warner's "Edward II: The Unconventional King." Prior to reading this book I had a very passing knowledge of Edward, aside from the fact his father, Edward I, was a strong warrior and king of England, and that his son was more or less a weak reproduction. Warner excels at exhausting the research on Edward II while making the book readable, compelling, and interesting. My only complaint is that she tends to overuse the lists of household expenses - sometimes this reads like a laundry list of Edward's disbursements. But this was minimal and did not detract from the overall book.
After finishing the book I did feel some sympathy for Edward. Tall, handsome, and generous, Edward was also extremely weak-willed, easily manipulated, and altogether not cut out to be king. His love affair first with Piers Gaveston and later with Hugh Despenser reminded me more of tunnel-visioned adolescent obsessions than anything befitting the ruler of England. It is no surprise that Queen Isabella left England only to return and overthrow Edward with her lover, Roger Mortimer.
Overall, "Edward II" is the story of a man who would have been happier working the fields and sharing a pint than ruling England. Bookended between two great kings (father Edward I and son Edward III), his terrible rule and scandalous behavior stands out as a handbook of how not to be a ruler in the 14th century. Warner also excels at illustrating what a violent time this was to be alive - I still can't get over the poor guy who was beheaded with a butter knife. Thoroughly researched and very well written, I highly enjoyed this book which is fascinating for the Medievalist as well as the layperson. 5 stars.
After finishing the book I did feel some sympathy for Edward. Tall, handsome, and generous, Edward was also extremely weak-willed, easily manipulated, and altogether not cut out to be king. His love affair first with Piers Gaveston and later with Hugh Despenser reminded me more of tunnel-visioned adolescent obsessions than anything befitting the ruler of England. It is no surprise that Queen Isabella left England only to return and overthrow Edward with her lover, Roger Mortimer.
Overall, "Edward II" is the story of a man who would have been happier working the fields and sharing a pint than ruling England. Bookended between two great kings (father Edward I and son Edward III), his terrible rule and scandalous behavior stands out as a handbook of how not to be a ruler in the 14th century. Warner also excels at illustrating what a violent time this was to be alive - I still can't get over the poor guy who was beheaded with a butter knife. Thoroughly researched and very well written, I highly enjoyed this book which is fascinating for the Medievalist as well as the layperson. 5 stars.
July 24, 2022
This was a very interesting and informative book about a usually misunderstood king. I found that some of my own knowledge was incorrect and subject to collective inaccuracies. The details set forth in the book give a well researched and knowledgeable focus to the true facts of this man's life. Let go of what you think you know and prepare to be taught the truth. My only complaint is that the author gave too much time to all the needlessly mundane activities of Edward. Some of these could have been left out, if for no other reason than to keep the book less heavy with trivial information.
February 22, 2025
A rare sympathetic and complex portrait of Edward II that seeks to understand the man without glossing over his flaws, mistakes and errors of judgment. Am I 100% convinced by Warner's assertion that he was not in fact murdered shortly after his deposition as conventional history tells us? No. But she does make a very good case for her theory. The truth will likely remain a mystery.
May 8, 2024
Well researched, and nicely arranged to dispell commonly repeated historical gossip.
April 29, 2017
Kathyrn Warner employs metaphors and epithets that trivialize Edward's character.These writings are mainly gossipy defamation ...."He allowed his male lovers to rule the kingdom". Sadly,this author is heavily influenced by the current societal obsession with diversity and unconventionality and is depicting historical events through the filter of contemporary mores.
Edward II was a controversial monarch but he was not a homosexual man. He was accused of transgression by his political enemies and this has led to him being wrongly portrayed as a homosexual by some modern day historians. He was a monarch who lacked the support and respect of his subjects - his reign ended in ignominy and he was eventually forced to abdicate the throne.There is no irrefutable proof to substantiate Warner's insinuation.The same warping of history is currently being attempted on Jane Austen, (they are citing the "passionate nature of the sibling bond" & the fact Austen shared a bed with her sister). Lord Baden-Powell, Hitler, JM Barrie (author of Peter Pan) Alexander the Great and many others have already been subjected to this form of retrospective reinterpretation. Academics intentionally manipulate source material for political purposes, it is a typical post-modern trick, and a stock element of the progressive agenda that is being used to validate and support a disposition endorsed by the Left.Most (99%) professionals in this particular academic field are ultra liberal,& assume approval and celebration of homosexuality are very positive developments which science made inevitable
Kathryn Warner claims her work dispels some myths, but in doing this she merely creates different mythologies.Sadly this author has adopted a faux neutrality stance,after marketing her book making bold references to "male lovers" and "male 'favourites",she concludes he probably wasn't gay, which has led some readers of this book to therefore infer he was a bi sexual.King Edward's relationship with Piers Gaveston is focused on excessively and intentionally used to incite the readers interest and hook them in to the narrative.Readers are being subliminally captured by being encouraged to think about sexual intrigue-sex sells. This is intentional Warner does this on purpose,she has used this 'hook' for many years. In a promotional article on her blog she has written..."Edward II's sexuality I knew that'd get your attention! ".
To deliberately try to focus the mind on the carnal,dragging a man's legacy down to cesspool level indicates a lack of integrity.
It is obvious she has subtly fashioned her writing to appeal to current social biases-such is the pervasive shallowness of our age. [Quote] "His life reads like an Elizabethan tragedy, full of passionate doomed love, bloody revenge, jealousy, hatred, vindictiveness and obsession. He was Edward II, and this book tells his story. The focus here is on his relationships with his male 'favourites' [end quote]. There seems to be a rather unhealthy drive in some human beings that attracts them to the salacious, and this book exploits & panders to that drive. Unfortunately there is a (lower self) human tendency to not only distort reality but to also create and amplify unreality on demand.Pumping up the juicy and then jazzing things up into something they are not. Newspapers and the television media also use sensationalizing techniques to grab attention and interest,but they are regulated in a way novels are not.She may have spent months of her life in archives researching her favourite subject but the skewed result is a cartoon character and a publication that has a slight resemblance to a Terry Dreary Horrible Histories creation.
'Entertaining and informative’ (BBC History Magazine)
Written to *entertain*. A truthful & faithful account would not have a sleazy soap opera quality to it.
One thing we know for definite about this period in history is there were godly men and women who followed Christ with a devotion we would be hard pressed to find today. Twentieth century Christians and churches will have more to answer for than our medieval dark age predecessors when God takes into account the light we each had.
Edward II was a controversial monarch but he was not a homosexual man. He was accused of transgression by his political enemies and this has led to him being wrongly portrayed as a homosexual by some modern day historians. He was a monarch who lacked the support and respect of his subjects - his reign ended in ignominy and he was eventually forced to abdicate the throne.There is no irrefutable proof to substantiate Warner's insinuation.The same warping of history is currently being attempted on Jane Austen, (they are citing the "passionate nature of the sibling bond" & the fact Austen shared a bed with her sister). Lord Baden-Powell, Hitler, JM Barrie (author of Peter Pan) Alexander the Great and many others have already been subjected to this form of retrospective reinterpretation. Academics intentionally manipulate source material for political purposes, it is a typical post-modern trick, and a stock element of the progressive agenda that is being used to validate and support a disposition endorsed by the Left.Most (99%) professionals in this particular academic field are ultra liberal,& assume approval and celebration of homosexuality are very positive developments which science made inevitable
Kathryn Warner claims her work dispels some myths, but in doing this she merely creates different mythologies.Sadly this author has adopted a faux neutrality stance,after marketing her book making bold references to "male lovers" and "male 'favourites",she concludes he probably wasn't gay, which has led some readers of this book to therefore infer he was a bi sexual.King Edward's relationship with Piers Gaveston is focused on excessively and intentionally used to incite the readers interest and hook them in to the narrative.Readers are being subliminally captured by being encouraged to think about sexual intrigue-sex sells. This is intentional Warner does this on purpose,she has used this 'hook' for many years. In a promotional article on her blog she has written..."Edward II's sexuality I knew that'd get your attention! ".
To deliberately try to focus the mind on the carnal,dragging a man's legacy down to cesspool level indicates a lack of integrity.
It is obvious she has subtly fashioned her writing to appeal to current social biases-such is the pervasive shallowness of our age. [Quote] "His life reads like an Elizabethan tragedy, full of passionate doomed love, bloody revenge, jealousy, hatred, vindictiveness and obsession. He was Edward II, and this book tells his story. The focus here is on his relationships with his male 'favourites' [end quote]. There seems to be a rather unhealthy drive in some human beings that attracts them to the salacious, and this book exploits & panders to that drive. Unfortunately there is a (lower self) human tendency to not only distort reality but to also create and amplify unreality on demand.Pumping up the juicy and then jazzing things up into something they are not. Newspapers and the television media also use sensationalizing techniques to grab attention and interest,but they are regulated in a way novels are not.She may have spent months of her life in archives researching her favourite subject but the skewed result is a cartoon character and a publication that has a slight resemblance to a Terry Dreary Horrible Histories creation.
'Entertaining and informative’ (BBC History Magazine)
Written to *entertain*. A truthful & faithful account would not have a sleazy soap opera quality to it.
One thing we know for definite about this period in history is there were godly men and women who followed Christ with a devotion we would be hard pressed to find today. Twentieth century Christians and churches will have more to answer for than our medieval dark age predecessors when God takes into account the light we each had.
October 20, 2025
לסקירה מפורטת בעברית ואנגלית, קישור לבלוג שלי -
https://sivi-the-avid-reader.com/edwa...
https://sivi-the-avid-reader.com/edwa...
April 7, 2020
Really interesting and well written biography of a King seen to be a total failure with a wife who hated him and ultimately had him murdered. But here Edward just left ruling to others - all too often favourites raised above their station and resented by the more traditional nobility. He did fail as a warrior compared with his father, but then Dad never really defeated Scotland either for all his military strength. And losing at Bannockburn was a low point even for Edward. Isabella did not hate her husband and until Despenser they had a good marriage as she had no problem with other favourites including Piers Gaveston. And not only did he not die impaled on a red hot poker, there is credible evidence he didn’t die in 1327 at all, but survived to end his days in a monastery on the continent.
February 20, 2017
Knowledge is a compellingly beautiful thing. When one is in the company of someone whose awareness of their subject is so deep and so painstakingly researched, it is a privilege to hear them speak, particularly if their words bounce easily with a confident, rather than a phlegmatic, intelligence. That is the experience of reading Kathryn Warner's superb biography "Edward II: The Unconventional King". Outside of Queer Theory classrooms, Edward II does not enjoy a kindly reputation. He was portrayed as a snivelling incompetent, a pathetic and faintly homophobic caricature in the hit movie "Braveheart", while recent biographies of his glamorous consort compared his government to one of depraved and vicious terror.
Kathryn Warner sets out to rescue Edward II from the calumnies heaped upon him and she does so with success, because it is quite clear upon reading this book that the author has spent years researching every detail of her subject's tumultuous life. Edward II, king and man, emerge from this biography not just as an unconventional monarch, but as a fascinating person.
Warner's book wears its sympathies openly and honestly. I have no problem with sympathetic biographies - one only need thing of Eric Ives's take on Anne Boleyn, Amanda Foreman's on Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, or Dominic Lieven's on Tsar Nicholas II - to know that a sympathetic biography can often produce the finest scholarship, as the author is inspired to delve deeper to produce the truth about someone who they have come to admire or pity, as well as remain fascinated by. (Likewise, biographies with a more critical hue, like Leanda de Lisle's take on Lady Jane Grey or Anna Sebba's account of Wallis Simpson, can often produce gems of historical writing. The crucial component seems to be intellectual honesty.)
The biography that "The Unconventional King" has most in common with, at least in terms of its tone, is Lady Antonia Fraser's 2002 bestseller, "Marie Antoinette: The Journey". Both Fraser and Warner are very clearly on their subjects' side, and while both are more than prepared to recount mistakes and follies, they emphasise the humanising, empathy-generating, or admirable qualities, perhaps because both royals have suffered a fate that saw their reputations torn asunder. If the balance needs corrected, it's on the side of charity.
"Edward II: The Unconventional King" is a beautiful, thought-provoking and compelling life of one of England's most enigmatic rulers, who emerges from the shadows as a flawed but oddly likeable prince. Anyone interested in monarchy or the Middle Ages will enjoy this superb biography.
Kathryn Warner sets out to rescue Edward II from the calumnies heaped upon him and she does so with success, because it is quite clear upon reading this book that the author has spent years researching every detail of her subject's tumultuous life. Edward II, king and man, emerge from this biography not just as an unconventional monarch, but as a fascinating person.
Warner's book wears its sympathies openly and honestly. I have no problem with sympathetic biographies - one only need thing of Eric Ives's take on Anne Boleyn, Amanda Foreman's on Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, or Dominic Lieven's on Tsar Nicholas II - to know that a sympathetic biography can often produce the finest scholarship, as the author is inspired to delve deeper to produce the truth about someone who they have come to admire or pity, as well as remain fascinated by. (Likewise, biographies with a more critical hue, like Leanda de Lisle's take on Lady Jane Grey or Anna Sebba's account of Wallis Simpson, can often produce gems of historical writing. The crucial component seems to be intellectual honesty.)
The biography that "The Unconventional King" has most in common with, at least in terms of its tone, is Lady Antonia Fraser's 2002 bestseller, "Marie Antoinette: The Journey". Both Fraser and Warner are very clearly on their subjects' side, and while both are more than prepared to recount mistakes and follies, they emphasise the humanising, empathy-generating, or admirable qualities, perhaps because both royals have suffered a fate that saw their reputations torn asunder. If the balance needs corrected, it's on the side of charity.
"Edward II: The Unconventional King" is a beautiful, thought-provoking and compelling life of one of England's most enigmatic rulers, who emerges from the shadows as a flawed but oddly likeable prince. Anyone interested in monarchy or the Middle Ages will enjoy this superb biography.
March 6, 2015
Edward II holds the dubious distinction of being the first English king to be forcibly deposed by his subjects, a situation which became almost too common in the later medieval era with Richard II, Henry VI and Edward V. His reign is also subject to more than its fair share of distortions and myths, and Kathryn Warner admirably disposes of a number of these in this commendable biography.
Edward, she argues, was probably not homosexual, as history has recorded, although that he was prone to emotional dependence on a succession of favourites is not in doubt, a recurring situation which was at the root of the majority of crises during his reign. He was incapable of putting aside his personal feelings for the good of his throne and kingdom and stubbornly refused to give up first Piers Gaveston, then Roger Damory and finally Hugh Despenser, even when his loyalty to them was destabilising his grip on power. His marriage to Isabella, popularly known to history as the 'She-Wolf of France', was in all likelihood a strong and loving one, and there is little evidence Isabella hated Edward or wished him dead. He was certainly not killed with a red-hot poker up the arse, a particularly distasteful tale which was probably spread hand-in-hand with the rumours of sodomy and homosexuality. And, as she and a growing number of historians are coming to believe, it is likely that he was not murdered at Berkeley Castle but instead survived for well over a decade after his supposed death in 1327, finally dying in Italy around 1341/1342, a fact which was known to his son Edward III and wife Isabella.
Whilst some may call this biography revisionist history, in its comprehensive demolishing of some of the cherished myths of Edward II's reign, in reality all history is revisionist. We simply cannot know for certain what happened in any era, and certainly not at 700 years remove. All historians can do is draw up a narrative that makes the best sense of the evidence at hand, evidence which is weighed as more or less reliable depending on a whole number of circumstances, revelations, extrapolations, current modes of thinking and theories. I found this book an excellent read, albeit all too short for my tastes, and Kathryn Warner has convinced me, for one.
Edward, she argues, was probably not homosexual, as history has recorded, although that he was prone to emotional dependence on a succession of favourites is not in doubt, a recurring situation which was at the root of the majority of crises during his reign. He was incapable of putting aside his personal feelings for the good of his throne and kingdom and stubbornly refused to give up first Piers Gaveston, then Roger Damory and finally Hugh Despenser, even when his loyalty to them was destabilising his grip on power. His marriage to Isabella, popularly known to history as the 'She-Wolf of France', was in all likelihood a strong and loving one, and there is little evidence Isabella hated Edward or wished him dead. He was certainly not killed with a red-hot poker up the arse, a particularly distasteful tale which was probably spread hand-in-hand with the rumours of sodomy and homosexuality. And, as she and a growing number of historians are coming to believe, it is likely that he was not murdered at Berkeley Castle but instead survived for well over a decade after his supposed death in 1327, finally dying in Italy around 1341/1342, a fact which was known to his son Edward III and wife Isabella.
Whilst some may call this biography revisionist history, in its comprehensive demolishing of some of the cherished myths of Edward II's reign, in reality all history is revisionist. We simply cannot know for certain what happened in any era, and certainly not at 700 years remove. All historians can do is draw up a narrative that makes the best sense of the evidence at hand, evidence which is weighed as more or less reliable depending on a whole number of circumstances, revelations, extrapolations, current modes of thinking and theories. I found this book an excellent read, albeit all too short for my tastes, and Kathryn Warner has convinced me, for one.
August 21, 2015
I love historical fiction, but I have to admit that some people take it too seriously and it can cause myths to develop which distort the understanding of history. In no case is this more true than that of King Edward II. There are perhaps more myths (and more ridiculous myths) about this man than any other English ruler.
This book spends much of its time popping those silly bubbles. If you think you know about Edward, the chances are that reading this work will make you realise that quite a few of your previous assumptions were entirely false.
Unlike some biographies this is not an attempt to create a case for the subject's sainthood. Warner recognises quite clearly that Edward was a most unsuitable person to be a king of medieval England, and sets out some of the reasons. However, she also tries to be fair to him, tells you of his (many) good points and explodes those silly myths. So this adds up to a very balanced account which gives the reader a good idea of what Edward II was really like. Unfortunately for him some of the very qualities which would make him an attractive leader in our times were a huge liability in his. For example he enjoyed the company of low-born people and liked to share their work and leisure pastimes. In the early fourteenth century, this was shocking and unkingly!
It is pleasing to note that Edward may not have been hideously murdered at Berkeley after all. The last chapter includes some persuasive evidence of his survival.
This book spends much of its time popping those silly bubbles. If you think you know about Edward, the chances are that reading this work will make you realise that quite a few of your previous assumptions were entirely false.
Unlike some biographies this is not an attempt to create a case for the subject's sainthood. Warner recognises quite clearly that Edward was a most unsuitable person to be a king of medieval England, and sets out some of the reasons. However, she also tries to be fair to him, tells you of his (many) good points and explodes those silly myths. So this adds up to a very balanced account which gives the reader a good idea of what Edward II was really like. Unfortunately for him some of the very qualities which would make him an attractive leader in our times were a huge liability in his. For example he enjoyed the company of low-born people and liked to share their work and leisure pastimes. In the early fourteenth century, this was shocking and unkingly!
It is pleasing to note that Edward may not have been hideously murdered at Berkeley after all. The last chapter includes some persuasive evidence of his survival.
June 8, 2018
I have followed Kathryn Warner's blog for years. It is well-researched and interesting, not only about Edward II but also about the other people in his era. Her book about King Edward II draws upon that research and provides an interesting portrait of a king who has been demonized by Shakespeare, Marlowe, and others throughout the centuries.
She draws extensively upon contemporary records to provide a full picture of a man ill-suited for the role his birth ordained. I especially liked how Ms. Warner used account records to show Edward's generosity to the common man as well as his lavish lifestyle. She also gives a new and interesting view of Isabella, his wife, and one that I thought made more sense than the story often told about her. She is often portrayed as a woman who rebelled against her husband by taking a lover and then his crown, because of his interest in his male lovers. Ms. Warner demolishes this picture, showing a much more prosaic and less lurid version of both Edward and Isabella, thus providing a more complete story.
This is a biography well worth reading by medieval history enthusiasts.
She draws extensively upon contemporary records to provide a full picture of a man ill-suited for the role his birth ordained. I especially liked how Ms. Warner used account records to show Edward's generosity to the common man as well as his lavish lifestyle. She also gives a new and interesting view of Isabella, his wife, and one that I thought made more sense than the story often told about her. She is often portrayed as a woman who rebelled against her husband by taking a lover and then his crown, because of his interest in his male lovers. Ms. Warner demolishes this picture, showing a much more prosaic and less lurid version of both Edward and Isabella, thus providing a more complete story.
This is a biography well worth reading by medieval history enthusiasts.
May 19, 2019
Informative, but perhaps too much so. At times, it reads like Warner has tried to fit every single bit of information about Edward into this book. That's justifiable for an academic book, but this isn't one - it sits awkwardly between popular history and academic. Either way, it doesn't read easily. For example, p130 - the first paragraph details letters of debts owed at the level even of Edward's barber. Hard to see what this adds to the book overall.
For me, at least, a popular history needs to be written far more engagingly, and an academic book far more polemically and thematically. This, rather, reads as an excrutiatingly detailed timeline of the minutiae of Edward's life - so detailed that, sadly, you can't see the wood for the trees.
For me, at least, a popular history needs to be written far more engagingly, and an academic book far more polemically and thematically. This, rather, reads as an excrutiatingly detailed timeline of the minutiae of Edward's life - so detailed that, sadly, you can't see the wood for the trees.
November 13, 2014
Thoughtful and thorough narrative, rooted in a close study of the sources, but no real attempt to analyse the politics (and therefore to understand exactly why Edward's reign was so disastrous) and becomes ridiculous in its steadfast insistence that Edward lived on after his murder. But a very readable rendition of a fascinating historical narrative.
December 20, 2014
Superbly researched. Superbly written.
April 22, 2023
This book started as a 4/5 to be honest, then around 30% of the way through it was a 4.5/5 and then in the final 3 chapters it easily went up to a 5/5. The story of Edward II that is commonly known is full of inaccuracies and is largely the result of writers writing long after his death. The evidence is never as clear as the writers say it was. There is no reason to be 100% certain that Edward II was gay or even bisexual, I’d even go to say that it’s more 50/50 and I personally don’t believe he was, he just was attached to men in a friendly way. I think they called him gay at the time as a way to pile on hate to the king. He was not a necessarily good king, he, along with his friends (Gaveston and the Despensers) ruled essentially and they abused their powers. Not towards common folk but to largely other nobles. Edward was nice to the commoners and frequently gave them large gifts of money or did “commoner” activities like swimming or digging a lot too. His wife Isabelle was driven away largely by his attachment to the Despensers and she led an invasion with Robert Mortimer from France, probably not to depose him but to end the Despensers influence, it went awry and eventually led to her never seeing him again and forcing him to abdicate, so I guess the feelings on her end deteriorated to a point towards the end. Their marriage was never unhappy until the end, writers would say it was always unhappy though which there is no evidence to support. The book towards the end really humanizes Edward II, it talks about stuff that we as people today know and do, it’s reasonable that they were the same type of people as us. There is also a theory that Edward II wasn’t murdered in 1327 and that a body double was used and he escaped and eventually made his way to the continent and met with the pope, John XXII. I honestly think it’s fun to believe that so I am going to and that he lived his days as a hermit or something away from everything. Also, there’s no definition evidence to suggest his wife, Isabella wanted him dead either, its more likely she would’ve wanted him to remain alive. The book does a great job at documenting him and his life and reign. Edward III came after him. This book was super amazing and I really came around to it at the end, it was always good but became way greater near the end. The book may rival the book I read about Edward I too. I recommend this to basically the same people as I said in the book about his father. This book tackles his life in a new way and does an amazing job at it too!
5/5
5/5
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews