Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance

by Stephen Spinks

Edward II is one of the most controversial kings of English history. On numerous occasions he brought England to the brink of civil war.Author Stephen Spinks argues that Edward and the later murdered Piers Gaveston were lovers, not merely ‘brothers-in-arms’. Influenced by successive royal favourites and with a desire for personal vengeance, his rule became highly polarised and unstable. His own wife took a lover and invaded his kingdom resulting in his forced abdication; the first in British history. Edward’s prevailing legacy remains the warning that all kings can fall from power.And yet … war, debt and baronial oppression before 1307 ensured that Edward II inherited a toxic legacy that any successor would have found almost impossible to wrestle with. Stephen Spinks explores that legacy using contemporary and later sources. By focusing on Edward’s early years as much as on his reign, and exploring the conflicting influences of those around him, Stephen shows the human side of this tale against a backdrop of political intrigues and betrayals. He peels back the layers to reveal the man who wore the crown. Edward’s belief in his unchallengable right to rule, increasingly at odds with those at his court, and his undeniable thirst for revenge, creates a fourteenth-century tragedy on a grand scale.

Genres: History, Medieval, Nonfiction, Biography

304 pages, Hardcover

Published June 1, 2018

Reviews

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edward II is remembered poorly by history. He is best, though incorrectly, known as the gay king who was killed with a red hot poker. Assessments of his reign usually conclude that he was a poor choice to be king, entirely unsuited to the role, while even the most lenient of biographers have to admit that he was overshadowed by the successes and military prowess of his father and son, the warrior-kings Edward I and Edward III. By contrast, Edward II’s own experiences of war show him as personally brave, but outmanoeuvred and hamstrung by circumstance. His difficulties in maintaining domestic stability saw him alienate influential noblemen and, ultimately, his wife – resulting in him becoming the first English king to be deposed. His intense and likely sexual relationships with other men, such as Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, marked him out further. Until very recently, he has been dismissed as a weak, foppish man in a treatment that smacks of homophobic assumptions on what gay men should be like, regardless of what the historical record tells us.

Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance is a new biography of Edward II written by Stephen Spinks. This is more of a narrative approach to history, with little page space given to the debates around Edward II’s life and reign. That is not to say that Spinks has not engaged with them, but this engagement occurs largely off-page. What ends up on the page is ultimately Spinks’s own version of Edward II and the events of his reign.

How you feel about and respond to such an approach is dependent on your personal preference. If you prefer your non-fiction to reflect the historical debates and uncertainties in all their glory or if you feel twitchy about reading an account that’s more reconstruction than exploration, this might not be the book for you. Additionally, how much you like or accept Spinks’s version of Edward II may depend on how much you agree with it.

Personally, I really enjoyed reading this. The writing was smooth and engaging – sometimes a sentence or two is clumsily phrased, but this didn’t happen often enough to seriously detract. It is astoundingly clear how passionate Spinks is about his subject and his interpretation of events is one that feels fair. It is evident that he has at least some sympathy for most of the figures involved and is able to build up to real, emotional picture of what happened – I particularly liked the way he talked about Marguerite of France and her relationship with Edward, and Isabella’s motivations in her rebellion.

Spinks characterises the relationship between Edward and Hugh Despenser the Younger as emotionally abusive on Despenser’s part. I can see the logic behind this and Spinks does explain his reasoning, but I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with this characterisation. Perhaps it seemed to lean towards vilifying Despenser on what is ultimately speculation – informed speculation perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.

I know a little about Edward II’s life, having already read Kathryn Warner’s excellent Edward II: The Unconventional King. These are ultimately very different types of biographies, with Warner’s approach being one of a myth-buster as opposed to Spinks’s narrative. I felt aware of the fact that Spinks glossed over a lot of arguments and debates about Edward II. For example, Spinks’s last chapter is about the theory that Edward lived past the traditional date given for his death. Spinks takes the view that Edward did survive and lived out the rest of his life in anonymity and exile, dying around 1341, and this chapter is one where Spinks really seems to divert from his usual approach to discuss the evidence for this assertion. However, he does not discuss the evidence for Edward dying in 1327, so his argument appears entirely convincing while readers get a lopsided view of the debate. This is an extreme example of one of the issues, however, and, as stated, Spinks’s approach was to write a narrative-biography of his own interpretation of events (and this is stated outright in the preface), so it is somewhat fair that he extends this approach to the topic of Edward’s death.

So, all in all, how one responds to this biography (written, it seems, to appeal to a general audience) will depend on personal preference. Personally, I really enjoyed it. Spinks’s writing is compelling, his approach feels fair to most involved and he’s open about the approach he’s taking.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5* - Full Review to Follow on my Blog: https://wheretheresinktherespaper.wor...

[Amy Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love my history, but reading factual, historical books is not something I do often as I find them to revolve around the politics of the time or 'the boring stuff' more than the people and what they got up to. I feel that this book has done a great job of looking at both aspects.

Having not known much about Edward II other than what you see of him in 'Braveheart' and the old hot poker up the bum rumour, I feel after reading this, I have much more knowledge about him as a man, as well as a King and the pressures he faced with that role.

Some great theories have been explored which have then led to me doing my own research. I love when something inspires me to find out more!

[Michael]

Should have been better.

I titled the review to describe both the book and the subject matter. Spinks' writing style is very confusing. At the outset of the book, for example, Edward I is still alive, and of course, so is Edward II. Spinks, however, fails to clearly differentiate the two, simply stating at various points that Edward did this or that. I don't lay this criticism as much at Spinks' feet as at the feet of his editor. Spinks himself is thoroughly enamored of his topic, which is fine, but it leads him to some specious conclusions. For example, he states that because Edward II was not expecting to fight at Bannock Burn responsibility for the defeat cannot be placed on him entirely. Well, actually it can. Edward II was in command of the English forces. He made the decision to split his forces. He humiliated the Earl of Gloucester into a suicidal attack on the schiltrons. He chose the disposition of his archers. Granted, Edward could do well in battle, but he didn't do well this time, and no amount of mental gymnastics on the part of the author will change that.
Another example of the author leaping far too readily to the defense of the subject is during the confrontations caused by Edward's favoritism toward Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger. To condense for the sake of clarity, Edward II began elevating people in his court which injured the pride of more senior nobles. Those nobles began to take umbrage at Edward's over generous gifts to Piers Gaveston in particular, and as a result, they began grumbling. Edward the Tone Deaf ignored their discontent. He ignored it so much that it led huge fractures opening in his government. Rather than pour oil on the waters, however, Edward decided to pour gas on the flames and instead of sending Gaveston into exile, as he had agreed to do, he made him Lord of Ireland. Long story short, this ends badly for Gaveston, who is taken prisoner by the nobles and beheaded, his body left out to rot.
Spinks spends more time discussing how Edward was consumed by the desire for revenge than analyzing what would drive a king to risk his kingdom so recklessly. Later, when Hugh Despenser the Younger is manipulating Edward into handing over huge chunks of the kingdom to him, the nobles begin moving in exactly the same direction. Edward fails to take heed of the past, and as a result, it is repeated, only worse this time, because it actually costs him his rule. Edward's wife, Queen Isabella (who happens to be the sister of the King of France, Charles IV), lands with a relatively small army in the area of East Anglia. The entire country practically joins her. Edward is embarrassingly chased around his country like a fugitive, by his wife and son. At no point does Spinks take him to task for this, instead, suggesting that Edward was so thoroughly dominated by Hugh Despenser the Younger that he couldn't think straight.
Edward II is a rich subject, the sort of figure out of history that future generations should love taking apart and examining, piece by curious piece. Sandwiched between his father (Edward I) and his son (Edward III), Edward II comes across in this book as a man simply not up to the task of governance. Spinks spends a good deal more time railing against Edward's nemesis, the Earl of Lancaster, and berating him for his inability to manage the Council of Ordainers than he spends even examining Edward's failure to lead his country. The book isn't supposed to be about Thomas of Lancaster, it's supposed to be about Edward II. Later, when Sir Roger Mortimer aids Isabella and eventually topples Edward's rule, more time is devoted to analyzing "The Mortimer" than is spent exploring the fundamentals of Edward's character that caused him to walk his kingdom off a cliff.

In the end, the reader is left wanting more. I was looking for a bit more of a peek into Edward's psyche (as much as one can have from 700 years away). Spinks relates interesting information at the end of the book suggesting that Edward did not die the horrific death history says he did (and for Edward's sake, I hope he's right). And so the book, like Edward himself, failed to live up to it's billing. I think Spinks may have been afraid to probe into just why Edward II failed so spectacularly. From Spinks' description of him, however, I have my own theory.
The Edward described by Spinks wasn't a bad guy, he was just ill suited for the role history handed him. As the saying goes, "Some men are born to greatness, while others have it thrust upon them". Edward was one of those odd cases of both. He was a Plantagenet, not an easy thing to be. He was born into a family of kings, fighters, plotters, and brawlers, the hardscrabble nobility. But Edward simply wasn't like them. It was not that he was inept or cowardly or stupid (he could be brilliant); he just comes across as a man who was king because he (unfortunately) had to be. Good guy; lousy king.

[Heidi Malagisi · Rating 4 out of 5]

When we think of medieval kings of England, we tend to think about strong warriors who did things their own way. Men like Edward I and Edward III often come to mind. Yet, there was a king in between these two legendary warriors whose name lives on in infamy, King Edward II. He is known for his numerous favorites, his relationships with men like Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, his disagreements with the barons who were trying to help him run the country, his relationship with his equally famous wife and son, Isabella of France and Edward III, and his dramatic death. But who was the man known as King Edward II? What was he really like? Stephen Spinks explores these questions in his latest biography, “Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance”.

I would like to thank Amberley Publishing for sending me a copy of this book. I remember hearing briefly about Edward II’s story in different documentaries that I have watched, but I have never read a biography about him before. This book was rather enlightening.

Spinks naturally begins with the birth of Edward of Caernarfon (the future King Edward II) to his parents, King Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. What is interesting is that Edward was their only son who survived long enough to become king, since his elder brothers would all pass away. His father, Edward I, was truly a warrior king, fighting against Wales and Scotland, yet he accumulated absolutely staggering debts which Edward II had to deal with when he was king. With his father’s victory in Wales, Edward of Caernarfon was made the first English Prince of Wales.

When Edward I died, Edward became King Edward II, with an inheritance filled with issues that would come to define his reign. Edward II had to deal with the crippling debt, war from numerous countries, and barons that were constantly trying to control how he ran the country. On top of all of this, Edward decided to rely heavily on men like Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, his “favorites”, which really did not sit well with the barons or his wife, Isabella of France. It is the belief of Spinks that Edward’s relationships with Gaveston and Despenser were more than platonic, that they were Edward’s lovers and that is why he always took their advice above his barons and gave them massive rewards. Personally, I am not sure how I feel about this theory since this was the first biography I read about Edward II, and I think I would need to study a bit more before I settle on a theory about this topic.

Another huge topic that Spinks addresses in his book is the split between Edward and Isabella that ultimately led to his downfall and his death. It was interesting to see how even though they did split up, Edward did indeed cared for his family, although he did have a rather unusual way of showing it. His abdication, death, and the stories of how he survived are really compelling and makes you wonder what happened to Edward II after his son became King Edward III.

Overall, I found this book extremely informative. Spinks was able to combine the complex nature of the government that was run by the barons with an easy to understand writing style. Spinks also discusses other theories written by other historians to allow readers to understand why he believes what he believes. After reading this book, I do want to learn more about King Edward II and his reign. If you want a great introductory book into the reign of King Edward II, I highly recommend you read, “Edward II the Man: A Doomed Inheritance” by Stephen Spinks.

[Vicki · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the writing style a bit dry, but, otherwise, an interesting biography of a much-maligned king of England. Concludes with the questionable theory that Edward was not murdered in prison (legend says he was killed by a red-hot poker thrust up his rectum), but was sent into exile and became a hermit.

I won't recommend this book because of its rather dull style, but the subject matter is certainly worth investigating. Will be reading more on Edward II.