Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II

by Kathryn Warner

Edward II's murder at Berkeley Castle in 1327 is one of the most famous and lurid tales in all of English history. But is it true? For over five centuries, few people questioned it, but with the discovery in a Montpellier archive of a remarkable document, an alternative narrative has presented that Edward escaped from Berkeley Castle and made his way to an Italian hermitage. In Long Live the King , medieval historian Kathryn Warner explores in detail Edward's downfall and forced abdication in 1326/27, the role possibly played by his wife Isabella of France, the wide variation in chronicle accounts of his murder at Berkeley Castle and the fascinating possibility that Edward lived on in Italy for many years after his official funeral was held in Gloucester in December 1327.

Genres: Medieval, Nonfiction, History, Biography, Plantagenet, Historical, Politics

313 pages, Kindle Edition

Published June 29, 2017

About the author

I 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!

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've long been intrigued by the theory that Edward II did not die in Berkeley Castle, that he lived on in secret and may well have ended his days in Italy as a hermit. It's one of the ultimate what-ifs of English history. Ian Mortimer is the most prominent advocate of this theory and has mentioned it in several of his books, so when I came across this title, an entire book devoted to exploring the evidence, I was very keen to read it.

Sadly, it was a tremendously disappointing read. I have read Kathryn Warner's previous biography of Edward II, Edward II: The Unconventional King, and thoroughly enjoyed it, so I don't know what went wrong here. I found this book a slog from start to finish, poorly written and edited, repetitive, threadbare in places and overwhelming with unnecessary detail in others. At times I was almost despairing when faced with yet another paragraph full of 'Edward may have crossed paths with A, who was sister of B, who was the daughter of C, niece of D, whose first husband's sister's brother's grand-nephew was King of Aragon' and so on. Thinking I'm exaggerating? Chew your way through this paragraph, as an example.

"Luca's brothers Federico and Carlo and his nephews were also acknowledged as Edward I and II's kinsmen, but his father Niccolo, Count of Lavanga, and uncles (who included Ottobuono Fieschi, elected Pope Adrian V shortly before his death in 1276) were not. The family connection tro the English royal family therefore must have come from Luca's mother, whose name was Leonora or Lionetta but whose family background is uncertain. Manuele Fieschi, a cousin of Luca but not descended from Luca's mother, was thus not related to the English royal house; neither was he Luca's nephew, as some English historians have claimed. Luca Fieschi also claimed kinship to Jaime II, King of Aragon in Spain (born 1279, reigned 1291 to 1327), and the only family relationship which would connect him to both Edward II and Jaime II came via the houses of Savoy and Geneva. Edward I's mother Eleanor of Provence, Queen of England and wife of Henry III, was the daughter of Raymond-Berenger V, Count of Provence, and her mother was Beatrice of Savoy, daughter of Thomas, Count of Savoy (Edward II's great-great-grandfather) and grand-daughter of William, Count of Geneva. Ian Mortimer has suggested that Luca Fieschi's mother Leonora/Lionetta was a daughter of the Italian nobleman Giacomo del Carretto, marquis of Savona, Noli and Finale (d. 168), who was a grandson of William, Count of Geneva and the first cousin of Edward II's great-grandmother Beatrice of Savoy, and was also related to Jaime II of Aragon (another descendent of William, Count of Geneva.) Giacomo del Carretto's daughter Brumisan addressed Edward I as her kinsman in 1278. Del Carretto's second wife Caterina da Marano (c. 1216/18-72) was one of the many illegitimate children of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250), and was the full sister of Enzo, King of Sardinia and a half-sister of Konrad, King of Germany and Manfredi, King of Sicily. It is possible, though still only speculative, that Giacomo del Carretto and Caterina da Marano had another daughter, Leonora or Lionetta, who married Niccolo Fieschi and was the mother of Cardinal Luca Fieschi. If Luca was indeed to the grandson of Giacomo and Caterina, he would have the third cousin of Edward I ( they would both be great-great-grandsons of William, Count of Geneva) and the third cousin once removed to Edward II. Luca's Malaspina nephews Manfredi, Bernabo and Niccolo, who may have been in charge of Edward II in Italy on the cardinal's behalf, would have the former king's fourth cousins. The family link would make Luca a second cousin of Jaime II of Aragon, who was a grandson of Manfredi, King of Sicily and great-grandson of Emperor Frederick II, and also his third cousin once removed via comment descent from William, Count of Geneva. There was certainly a blood connection between Luca Fieschi and his brothers and nephews, and Edward I and II; although one of Edward I's great-uncles from Savoy married a Fieschi woman, a mere marital connection would not be enough for the Kings of England to address several of the Fieschi men as their relatives. Neither Edward I nor his father Henry III ever addressed any of the Fieschis before Luca and his generation as their kinsmen."

Lost the will to live yet?

The evidence itself is compelling, what little of it there is. A letter in a French archive from a very well-connected Italian to Edward III, that may or may not have been sent. A reference in a letter from the Archbishop of York that states Edward II is alive well after the date of his supposed death. And the execution of Edward II's half-brother, the Earl of Kent, for rebelling against Mortimer and Isabella on behalf of his supposedly-still-living brother. It's thin evidence, to be certain, but so much evidence from the fourteenth-century is - the evidence of Edward II's death in 1327 that historians have relied on for centuries is equally as tenuous.

So did this book convince me? No. I'm still open to the possibility - there is no such thing as historical fact, after all, merely a long-standing, plausible and largely accepted argument; and the evidence that argues for Edward II's survival relies on just as many suppositions and assumptions as the evidence for his death. The Fieschi letter is certainly curious and requires explanation, if one proceeds from the position that Edward II did die in 1327, as does Thomas Berkeley's statement to Parliament that he did not know Edward was dead until 1330, when supposedly he died in Berkeley's own castle. And just because something seems extraordinary or implausible doesn't negate its truth - history is chock full of extraordinary and implausible occurrences. If DNA evidence or some other irrefutable document appeared proving Edward II died years after his supposed murder in 1327, I'd be delighted, largely because of its implausibility! But on the basis of this book, I am still waiting for an historian who can spin me a convincing enough tale...

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

After publishing biographies of both Edward II and his queen, Isabella of France, in Long Live The King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II Kathryn Warner turned her attention to the question of what exactly happened to Edward II. Did he in fact in 1327, as suggested by all chroniclers, or is the modern theory that his death was somehow faked and that he survived into the 1330s and 1340s true?

It is a fascinating question and one I’m undecided on. There have been compelling arguments made, not only by Warner in this book but the likes of Ian Mortimer and Stephen Spinks. But at the same time, my gut instinct still finds it implausible (hardly a rational indicator, I know).

The book is divided into a brief overview of Edward II’s life and reign up until his deposition, then larger chapters dealing with Edward II’s imprisonment, reputed murder, funeral, the trials of his supposed murderers, before moving onto the evidence of his survival, from the Earl of Kent’s plot to free him to the Fieschi letter and “William the Welshman” who claimed to be Edward III’s father. Warner then concludes by going over and offering her take on various arguments made about the stories and theories about Edward’s murder and survival.

Despite reviews suggesting Long Live The King was written poorly with too much detail, I found it relatively decent – certainly, I found it a smoother read than Warner’s Richard II: A True King's Fall. It is verbose in places and the chapters about Edward II’s post-abdication life in France, Italy and Germany are easy to get lost in – there’s simply so much detail. I also caught a couple of typos in the text.

As I’ve said, Warner’s arguments are convincing, but it is apparent from the beginning that Warner sits firmly on the survival side of the debate and it remains clear throughout the book, with her taking a hard-line attitude against those who argue against the survival theory. Some of Warner’s rebuttals become borderline absurd, such as her suggestion that because historians are doubtful to take the Earl of Kent’s confession as proof that Edward II because he did not see Edward himself, we should therefore also refuse to take any chronicler’s word for anything that happened if they did not see it for themselves.

Personally, I think I would have preferred a book about this topic written by someone whose bias or ‘side’ was not so strongly evident. I have enjoyed Warner’s scholarship, particularly on Edward II, but with this type of book and this type of subject, I wanted a different approach than the one she took. I kept thinking that I wished an author like Joyce A. Tyldesley had written it (obviously not actually Tyldesley, as she is an Egyptologist, not a medievalist), where the evidence was discussed in a way that made me feel that the author was not firmly and defiantly sticking to her side of the debate but going where the evidence wanted to take her.

All in all, this is a good, solid work and the arguments are convincing, but I also feel like I need to read something by someone who on the “die in 1327” side of things to balance out my understanding of events.

[Carolina Casas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did Edward II love past 1327?

That's the real million dollar question of the fourteenth century, isn't it? To which we may never have a clear answer because as the author.cleverly points out, history is always open for debate. It is composed of many schools of thoughts which should always be open for discussion. For that same reason, I decided to take on the challenge of reading this biography alongside the one about Edward III by Ian Mortimer where he discusses the possibility of Edward II living past 1327.
Although I am still in the fence when it comes to this topic, of all of the arguments for and against it that I have read thus far, the more convincing are the ones that lean towards the possibility of Edward II's survival. That being said though, I appreciated the author dissecting all documents to a T to support this theory, while still maintaining a level of humility. It makes readers become encouraged to form part of the historical debate without the fear of academic condescension or hostility.

I highly encourage history buffs to read this biography and anyone new to this school of thought (or even if you're not and you have dismissed it) to read this with an open mind. The author dispels many myths and outrageous legends surrounding Edward II and his family, including his enemies. In doing so, it becomes easier to understand why much of the history community has leaned more towards to the mainstream version of events that Edward II was murdered in 1327 at the behest of his wife, Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, at the end you'll be encouraged to delve more into this subject and hopefully keep the conversation going.

[Vincent Faes · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best history books I've read this year. Kathryn Warner is critical and thorough, necessities for any historian, while also writing in a entertaining and, most importantly, educating way.

[ConstantReader · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is real medieval murder mystery. What really happened at Berkeley Castle in September 1327? Was Edward II murdered, or did he escape?
The traditional story is that Edward II was murdered - you probably heard the oft-repeated tale about the red hot poker inserted into his rectum. But is it true?
In her book, Kathryn Warner presents tantalising evidence that Edward II may have actually survived. Instead of following the traditional narrative, Warner delves deeper into the primary sources and constructs a different, but no less credible, narrative for the end of Edward's life.
The issue of whether Edward survived post-1327 has been hotly debated among historians, with some being very hostile to the idea that the King wasn't murdered at Berkeley because it completely disrupts the theories about Edward, his reign, his marriage and his son. Warner isn't afraid to ruffle some feathers by debunking the oft-repeated myths and falsehoods even if they were written/invented by eminent scholars.
But this is not an alternative history - it's a very well-documented book about the King who might have survived.
Also, the Afterword written by Ivan Fowler of the Auramala Project, is very interesting. The Auramala Project is a non-profit organisation dedicated to solving the mystery of Edward II's fate. It can be easily determined whether Edward was or wasn't murdered by simply examining the body that was buried in his tomb, topped with his famous effigy, at Gloucester Cathedral. But they need to find Edward II's living ancestor, preferably female due to genetic reasons, and compare this person's DNA with Edward's. It's not easy but it can be done.
I loved this book because I love this period in history. Kathryn Warner is one of the best historians of the 21st century because she's dedicated to finding the truth. I will read everything from this author because of her compelling style and no-nonsense attitude.
Edward II's life and death should be made into a TV series or a movie because it was so unbelievably turbulent and tragic at the same time. I hope someone will adapt this non-fiction book into a compelling series.

[Jonny Albertsson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Warner has done stellar research for this book and should be lauded for her work. She casts new light on an old story, revealing inconsistencies, implausibilities and falsehoods with the established old narrative.

The evidence she presents for the theory of Edward II's survival is not bulletproof, but in comparison with the flimsy evidence of him actually dying in 1327 it is a much more likely scenario. Most stories relating to his death are later fabrications and should be, but aren't dismissed outright.

I'm a bit annoyed about the general response to these revelations by some historians, such as David Carpenter. These seem like simple knee-jerk reactions from people unwilling to rethink the possibilities.

Carpenter has tried to discredit the possibility that Edward II lived on, but is clutching at straws when doing so and is very unconvincing in his rebuttals as I will point out below.

1) The body was only seen "superficially" at the funeral. People weren't allowed up close, and it was covered, even the face was most likely shrouded so he could not have been recognized.
1 a) During the funeral procession the body remained in the coffin, while an effigy of the Kings likeness was placed on top. This was the first time this was done, as previously the embalmed bodies of the deceased kings had been clearly on show.
1 b) The Earl of Kent was at the funeral. Even so, he was among those who adamantly believed the King was not dead and this view would later seal his fate. The Earl of Kent was Edward II's brother.

In other words, Mortimer did not want anyone unauthorized to see the body.

Carpenter tries to disprove this theory by asserting that the chronicler Adam Murimuth, in his chronicle of the time, says that many abbots, priors, knights and burgesses of Bristol and Gloucester were called to see the body. Carpenter believes that by viewing the body only ‘superficially’, Murimuth would have meant that they couldn’t examine how the king died, not that they couldn’t see his face.

This is an unlikely interpretation, as the kings own brother was not allowed to see the face (even though he was on good terms with Isabella and Mortimer at the time). Yet Carpenter would have us believe that some unnamed knights, priors and burgesses would have had this privilege. As Murimuth gives no names, this must have been pure guesswork on his part. He'd have thought it probable no doubt. It is also possible that a select few people who had never seen the king witnessed the body. The lady doing the embalming would no doubt have been one of them.

2) The Fieschi letter. A papal notary called Manuele Fieschi wrote King Edward III asserting him that Edward II had survived and escaped to Italy. The authenticity of the letter is undisputed. Fieschi would have met Edward II in England during his reign and would certainly have recognized him. Fieschi knew a lot of details about Edwards captivity and escape which could not possibly have been known by any outsiders.

Carpenter tries to discredit the letter as an attempt of blackmail. Again this is highly likely, for several reasons. Manuele Fieschi has an impeccable reputation as a devout servant of God and it is a huge leap to assume that this would have been the one and only time that he would have stooped to blackmail, and what's more that he would have targeted no less a person than a king! Neither did Fieschi ever credit in any way from the situation. He had some active incomes from England at the time, which were duly continued years after the letter would have been written, but that was nothing unusual. No, to try to paint Fieschi as a blackmailer is ludicrous and reveals a great stubbornness in Carpenter.

Some historians such as Carpenter are too entrenched in their views to be able to realize that their old assumptions can in fact be invalid.

Edward III did meet the man Fieschi writes about, in Koblenz. This man did not try to blackmail the King, nor did the King have him executed as often happened with royal imposters. Exactly what was said at that meeting we'll never know. Yet we can with near certainty conclude that the man Edward III met that day was indeed his father, who forgave him and gave him his blessing in a highly emotional meeting.

Just because something seems extraordinary or unlikely doesn't negate its truth (as I think someone else wrote in a review here) - history really is full of extraordinary and unlikely occurrences.

[Alyson Stone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book: Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II
Author: Kathryn Warner
Rating: 3 Out of 5 Stars

I would like to thank Netgalley and the publisher, The History Press for providing me with this free ARC.

As many of you know or may not know, I am writing a high fantasy book series set in the Middle Ages. I am trying to make my series as political and real as possible, so I am reading everything Middle Ages that I can get my hands on. The story of Edward II’s death has become something of an interest to me. The story has been in the back of my mind and I knew I was going to have to read it and see if it could add anything to my world building.

Kathryn has provided us with a very detailed and very well formulated argument about Edward II’s possible survival. Though I’m not convinced that he did survive, I must say that there is plenty of evidence here and it could sway some people who are on the fence about Edward II. I love how she used material from the time period to write her book and I think it only strengthens her argument. I loved how everything flowed so wonderfully and just seemed to fit.

I loved the first half of the book, but the second half just seemed to be based so much on theory and not fact. I don’t know what it was about the second half, but it seemed kind of on the boring side to me. There was a lot of references to letters, which are included in the appendices, but I think should have been included in where they were being referred to. I think it would have added so much more to the book and would have filled in any holes that readers may have had. I’m thinking of those who may not be familiar with the letters or Edward II.

While I did love Kathryn’s writing, the long paragraphs at times were hard to take. There were paragraphs that went on for what seemed like pages. I really do think they should have been broken up a little better or edited. The long paragraphs just didn’t feel right. It was almost like there was too much going on in a paragraph. I guess what I’m trying to get at was it made the book seem a lot bulkier than it was-the book is actually an easy read.

I just have a love-hate relationship with this book. I do think that anyone interested in Edward II should pick this book up. However, I would recommend getting from the library instead of buying it.
This book will be released on November 1, 2017.

[Joanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be an enjoyable read, if a bit daunting. Author Kathryn Warner clearly knows her stuff, and I thought she did a wonderful job of presenting the evidence both for and against the survival of Edward II after 1327 (and intended or not, I thought presented some compelling food for thought about the plausibility of the survival of the Princes in Tower). She was also very fair in her representations of all the historical personalities involved, not just the subject of the book.

There is a lot of detail in this book, which is why I at times found it a bit daunting and dry. I would, however, chalk that up to my own lack of background on Edward II. He was the man I only knew as a weak king overthrown by his she-wolf wife and the infamous red-poker story of his death. Suffice it to say, Warner beautifully fleshes him out as a complete human being, faults and all, as well as his relationships with his wife, favorites, etc. and how they all fit together at that time in history.

I suspect this is a book I may come back to as I read more on Edward II, because as noted previously, it is probably not as well suited to folks just beginning to familiarize themselves with this particular English monarch. For those who do have a solid background on Edward II and the cast of characters that influenced his reign, this is a great read - and on a sidenote, I would highly recommend you catch the guest spot Kathryn Warner did a few years ago on the Tudor Dynasty Podcast about Edward II.

[Lili · Rating 3 out of 5]

From Netgalley for review:

I am moderately obsessed with English history, it being one of the main things I read, so seeing a book dedicated to one of my favorite kings was a treat. I really liked the information presented (he is a controversial figure with a lot of myths surrounding him, seeing them explored and analysed was enjoyable) however the writing style of the book was painful. It read like one giant run-on sentence. I remarked to my husband who wanted to know if he should read the book (being newly interested in this particular period of English history thanks to my rants on it) and I had to say no, I know who the players are and even I had a hard time telling what was going on with the way the book was written. I really wanted to love this book, but all I could do at the end was be glad it was over.

[Nola · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible research. If you are familiar with this period of history, this book is delightful as it draws the line between truth and frequently believed fiction. The amount of historical reference reaches far beyond the bibliography. If you love historical fiction, this book is an easy read and allows you to see both sides of the story - not getting too entrenched in the injustice as it occurred on all sides. This is definitely not fiction but you will enjoy it. If you are doing genealogical reasearch, you can't help but bump into your relatives and maybe on both sides which is truly eye-opening.

Do I have an opinion on what really happened? Yes, I do but no spoilers here. Read this. You must.

[Heather · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book had a lot of potential, and have me a new insight into Edward II (Braveheart had him and Isabella all wrong) but quickly became terribly repetitive and fell into long lists of names and what they did on various days, then another long list of names and what they did over the same time period... then another long list of people and what they did at that same time. It got to feel like the movie Groundhog Day - didn't we already cover this event on these dates? - so after skipping large sections I gave up.

[Lynn A Baumann · Rating 5 out of 5]

More EdII Info

For more detailed information presenting both sides of the argument for and against the afterlife of Edward II, this is a must read. Lots of facts and relationships that demonstrate the feasibility that EdII did not die in Berkeley Castle and documents his escape route to Italy. It would be neat to have a series presenting both sides of the story case in the places the King ran to and his interactions....

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting analysis of the evidence for and against the death of Edward II in 1327.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent, with compelling cases for both sides.