Edward and the Problems in his Reign

One historian remarked that Edward sat down to play a game of cards and was dealt a bad hand which he played badly. An astute, if not slightly misleading, statement. I think Edward gets a bad rap and ok, a lot of it is deserving but some of the problems in his reign cannot simply be left at his door.

As mentioned earlier, Edward had been left a lot of debt from his fathers constant campaigning in Scotland. £200,000 might not sound like a great sum in modern minds, but in the medieval period it was a small fortune. A depleted treasury meant Edward already started his kingship with problems. Add to this a crisis in Europe and its no wonder our little king was having difficulties.

Famine 1315-17

In the fourteenth century there was a world wide famine. It came amidst the growing raids in the north, the revolt in Bristol against Bartholomew Badlesmere (one of the rebels who stood with Lancaster in the civil war) and the battle for the Clare inheritance. Edward appears to have taken the blame for the famine – although how he had any control over nature is ridiculous. To a medieval mind it was justified. It was compared to the plagues of Egypt and was attributed as divine retribution against the king for going against the wishes of god. Either way, it put intense strain on the economic wellbeing of the kingdom. Prices of foodstuff had to rise and poverty and starvation amongst the peasant population were rife. The famine and debt left by Longshanks could be used to argue that Edward was a victim of economic events and that is one of many reasons as to why he never managed to get a grip of his kingdom.

Political Jealousies

Edward obviously did not help his own case. His reliance on favourites (whether they were lovers or not is irrelevant at this juncture) caused tension between the King and his other magnates. It is important to understand the nature of politics in this period to realise the damage this did.

Lords relied on the king to further their social standing through the act of patronage. By doing a good deed the king would reward his men with lands and money. However, Gaveston – and later Despenser – detracted the kings attention away from the other magnates and prelates of the land, meaning patronage was unfairly distributed. Edward really never managed to exploit the act of patronage well. In fact, in all honesty he sucked at it.

Having favourites also caused other more serious issues. The king was relied upon to sort our petty domestic disputes before it led to the unfurling of banners (the official declaration of war) and because only a select few had his ear, it caused arguments to get out of hand. The one that springs to mind is between Lancaster and Warenne after the latter abducted the formers wife. Despenser even went so far as to decide who could see the king and who could not. It is clear from the Ordinances, and even the clause added to the coronation oath, that the magnates tried to redress this balance, but never succeeded. The majority of the problems in the reign seem to come from the unfair treatment of some individuals who were less favoured than others. Audley and Damory lost their lands in the Marches following their inheritance from their marriages to the Clare sisters and yet Despenser remained untouchable, protected by the king. Gaveston’s raise to earl of Cornwall, a title that was usually reserved for the kings brothers, and Edward’s bestowal of gifts on him, had already caused resentments early on in the reign and Edward was repeating the same mistakes. I think it is safe to say that Edward was generous beyond measure to those he loved, but that he ignored everyone else outside of that circle.

Lack of Earls

The breakdown in the Marches prior to the civil war was a big turning point in the reign of Edward. It not only led to localised violence, but it was used as an excuse to settle old scores – especially against the pesky Despensers who had taken more or less control of the area.

During the latter part of Edward’s reign, we start to see a break up in the Court due to the favouritism of the Despensers. Even Isabella was severely put out by the man.

It is also worth noting that Edward was severally lacking in earls at this point. Many of them had died in the Scottish campaigns under Longshanks and had never been replaced. I don’t have any official sources on this but my lecturer mentioned that unlike other kings, Edward’s earls were depleted – and the ones he did have, he didn’t particularly like. His distain for Lancaster was probably warranted because of the murder of Gaveston, but there seems to be little love lost between the king and the others. Due to this lack of nobility, there was a distinct scrabble for titles and land, which, in hindsight, Edward could have exploited to his advantage, gaining loyal vassals in the process. However the king either didn’t recognise the uses of patronage, or he chose to raise those he favoured.

Sources Used:

• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999)
  

De Clares and their inheritance

After Gaveston’s death in 1312, a new cluster of favourites began to emerge at the Royal Court: Hugh Audley, Roger Damory (sometimes called Amory), and William Montague. Edward favoured the first two with marriages to his nieces, Elizabeth and Margaret de Clare. Eleanor was already married to Hugh Despenser the younger.

With the death of the heirless Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, at Bannockburn, the issue of the Earldom became a serious problem. Gilbert’s widow claimed she was pregnant with his child for the two years following the Earls death, a lie that Edward seemed content to allow as he sought out favourable marriages for the two widowed Clare sisters, Elizabeth and Margaret. But these claims were finally put to rest after she – obviously - didn’t give birth. I’m not entirely sure how long she would have kept up the ludicrous notion that she was with child, but it’s an eye rolling moment anyway.

The inheritance, due to a will left by their father, was split between the three sisters and Gilbert’s widow in 1317. it amounted to some £6000 per year – which was a helluva lot of money. It makes it more understandable why these two women were so sought after. Marrying them brought instant prestige – not only as nieces to the king, but also because of the wealth they possessed.

According to the article on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography by Hamilton, the land was split between the three heiresses. Eleanor, the eldest and wife of Hugh Despense, was given Glamorgan and Tewkesbury. Margaret and Hugh Audley were given Gwynllŵg, the castle of Tonbridge and associated manors in Kent, and the youngest, Elizabeth, and her husband Roger Damory were given Usk, the honour of Clare, and manors in Dorset.

The main problem was that the de Clare heiresses were sitting on a goldmine. Gloucester was a great catch and Hugh Despenser the younger wanted the Earldom and the wealth that came with it. He tried to expand his lands of Glamorgan, forcing his brother in law, Hugh Audley (married to Margaret, Gaveston’s widow) to hand over the Welsh lands he had inherited from the Clare settlement. This in itself did not go unanswered and led to a Marcher rising in 1321 (essentially the beginning of the Civil War).

Eleanor de Clare

The eldest of the three heiresses, her marriage to Hugh Despenser was completed when Edward Longshanks, her maternal grandfather, was still alive. She became extremely wealthy following the death of her brother, the Earl of Gloucester and as such, Hugh himself became an important lord in the country.

Hugh however was ambitious and ruthless in that ambition. Every time I read his actions I find myself shaking my head because I know where his arrogance leads him. He immediately started trying to pull the Earldom of Gloucester back together, seizing the lands that had been given to the other Clare sisters.

It would be wrong to blame the entire civil war on Despenser’s land grabbing in the Welsh Marches, because there were already underlying tensions there prior to this, but the action did fuel the fire. Despenser successfully alienated himself from the other Marcher lords such as the Earl of Hereford, Roger Mortimer, Hugh Audley, Roger Damory and others.

Caerphilly Castle, South Wales. Belonged to the Clare family and passed to Despenser. It was the site of the rebellion in 1316 by Llywelyn Bren. Having been there myself I have to say it is a truly forboding place and I can imagine the difficulties that arose from trying to siege it. The moat is frigging huge.

The king was finally forced to intervene before full out war broke and seized Gower into royal hands. However the damage had already been done and under the command of Lancaster and Hereford, they attacked Despenser.

Margaret de Clare

Second eldest of the Clare sisters. Married to Gaveston on the 1 November 1307 at Berkhamsted. Margaret and Gaveston had one daughter, Joan, born in York on 12 January 1312. Gaveston was executed by his political enemies in June 1312, and in September the king endowed the widowed Margaret de Clare with lands valued at 2000 marks per annum. This arrangement was modified in December 1316, but the new settlement provided her with the same annual revenues.

On 28 April 1317 she married at Windsor, Hugh Audley. In September 1318 Audley and Margaret unsuccessfully petitioned the York parliament for possession of the earldom of Cornwall, which had been part of her first husbands’ lands.

Of the three sisters, Margaret came off less well in the division of the Clare inheritance and after her lands in South Wales were taken by Despenser, Audley joined the Marcher lords, and fought under Lancaster.

He was captured during the battle of Boroughbridge and imprisoned between 1322 and 1326. unlike the other lords in the rebellion who were brutally executed, Margaret’s interception saved her husband from the chopping block.

Elizabeth de Clare

Elizabeth married John de Burgh, Earl of Ulster and the brother of Gilbert’s wife, in 1308.

February 1316, Elizabeth, widowed some three years earlier, was abducted by a man called Theobald de Verdon, who claimed she had been betrothed to him in Ireland. He died no more than five months later, but not before Elizabeth fell pregnant with her daughter, Isabella. Edward, wanting a man he could trust in such a high position of power, began to persuade Elizabeth to marry his favourite, Damory and in May 1317 they were joined.

She was forced into turning over her castle at Usk to her brother-in-law, Hugh Despenser and later she also lost Gower. Usk was eventually returned to her in 1327 by Edward III, but during the rise of the Despenser’s she never managed to regain her welsh lands.

Sources Used:

• Hamilton, J.S, ‘Clare, Margaret de, countess of Gloucester (1291/2?–1342)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)
• Hamilton, J.S, ‘Despenser, Hugh, the younger, first Lord Despenser (d. 1326)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)
• Maddicott, J.R, ‘Audley, Hugh, earl of Gloucester (c.1291–1347)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999)
• Ward, J, ‘Clare, Elizabeth de (1294/5–1360)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)

Battle of Bannockburn 1314

The Battle of Bannockburn – or Stirling – occurred on the 23-24 June, 1314 between the King of England, Edward, and Robert the Bruce. It’s described as the worst English loss and the greatest Scottish victory. I’m not going to go into tactics and strategies… because frankly I don’t understand enough about it to do it justice. There are some pretty good books out there on it anyway by people who understand military history much better than I do.

Bannockburn started with several raids by the Scots into Northern England. Distracted by Gaveston’s murder and the Ordinances, Bruce sought the opportunity to strengthen his position.
It began with the seizure of Perth and was followed by castles being taken from Dumfriesshire and Galloway. Bruce moved further, taking the Isle of Man in may 1313, meaning the only remaining major strongholds in Scotland where Stirling Castle, and a number of fortresses in Linlithgow, Dunbar, Berwick and Roxburgh – none of which had gone over to Bruce yet. Linlithgow, Edinburgh and Roxburgh fell between September 1313 and March 1314.

An arrangement was made between Bruce’s brother, Edward Bruce, and the English force at Stirling. Unable to successfully besiege the castle and no sign of an end point they came to an agreement. If the king did not deploy a force by Midsummer Day 1314 then the English would surrender Stirling. Edward, hearing this challenge was forced to act.

Dissent amongst Edward and his magnates was evidently still an issue as Lancaster, Warwick, Arundel, and Warenne did not participate in the battle. The reasons for this are uncertain, but speculation has led historians to think that perhaps these men feared the repercussions of an English victory. It is possible the battle could have been used as an excuse to rid the kingdom of the men who had helped to kill Gaveston. The Earls refused to go, claiming that such a battle had not been agreed by parliament.

The effect this had on the battle itself is largely unknown, and although there is speculation over whether or not the loss of these magnates disadvantaged the English, it is just that – speculation. But the general gist of why the English lost so badly was because the Scots were able to chose the ground on which to fight, leaving the English in less than suitable conditions, and because the English were largely unprepared for the battle. Add to that the fact that Edward was decidedly a poor military leader who did not have the stomach for warfare and the fact that Scottish force were more disciplined and you have the recipe for defeat.

There was an argument over who would lead the vanguard (Gloucester or Hereford) and Edward was unable to resolve the debate between the two Earls. In many respects this shows the lack of control Edward had over his vassals. When the battle commenced, Gloucester rode ahead, wanting to be the first to engage the enemy and seek the glory. Abandoned by Bartholomew Badlesmere, he was promptly killed at the meagre age of twenty-three, leaving behind no heir. This in itself had major repercussions for the rest of Edward’s reign. The Earldom of Gloucester passed to his three sisters and led to a power struggle. Not only that, but Edward lost a great mediator and a valuable ally.

Bannockburn’s political implications caused further problems than the de Clare’s inheritance. Edward had lost magnificently and the Scottish expelled the English from all of Scotland – only retaining a hold on Berwick.

Sources Used:

• Altschul, M, ‘Clare, Gilbert de, eighth earl of Gloucester and seventh earl of Hertford (1291–1314)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999)

The Ordinances 1308-1313

Edward’s kingdom was already in trouble very early on in his reign. His abandonment of the Scottish campaign that his father had begun led to dissent amongst a number of nobles who had lands there and resented the lack of support from the crown. Gaveston’s recall from exile was causing major tensions and the Vita Edwardi Secundi even suggests that Piers was so unpopular because ‘he alone found favour in the king’s eyes.’ (Vita)

Further tensions arose during December 1307 when Gaveston partook in a tournament and beat most of the Lords involved. It only added fuel to an already burning fire and Edward himself made the situation worse by making Gaveston the Keeper of the Realm when he went to complete his marriage to Isabella in France. Not only that, but Gaveston had his hand in the Royal Treasury which was already heavily indebted. Issues with high taxation and extreme poverty of the people was becoming a running theme.

It was in January of 1308 when the first official vocalisation of opposition to Edward was heard. The Boulogne Document, drawn up by the Bishop of Durham, the Earls of Lincoln, Surrey, Pembroke, Hereford and five other barons declared that they wanted to reform the kingdom, citing crimes against the right of the crown, against the kings honour and against the people as the reasons for such letters. However they were pretty careful about doing so. It’s a fine line between treason and doing what’s best for the crown. It’s the whole argument of getting around the fact the monarch is preordained by god and is a subject of god. Religion in those days was a big issue. They tried to get around the idea of treason by stating they were loyal to the crown and the king, but by passing the blame onto others for leading the king astray. You can guess who got the blame for that… yup, Gaveston. Boulogne is an important document because it tries to differentiate between the Office of the King and the Kings person. Essentially, this is the argument that comes when deposing Edward later on. The line in the agreement that stands out is:

“…was done before this time against his honour and the rights of his crown.”

Whether or not the kings person and the office of the king can be separate entities is an argument for another day. It’s rather a complex discussion.

Further dislike of Gaveston and his influence continued to grow because of his lavish behaviour at the Coronation of Edward in February 1308, but it was the addition of a new clause put into the Coronation Oath itself that is most telling. It’s not very exciting but here is a translation of the Oath in 1308 taken from the Foedera:

Sire, are you willing to grant and preserve and by your oath confirm to the people of England the laws and customs granted to them by former kings of England, your righteous and godly predecessors, and particularly the laws, customs and liberties granted to the clergy and the people by the glorious king St. Edward, your predecessor?

Sire, will you for God and the holy church and for the clergy and for the people keep peace and accord in God, to the best of your ability, intact?

Sire, will you in all your judgement have impartial and improper justice and discretion done in compassion and truth to the best of your ability?

Sire do you agree to maintain and preserve the laws and rightful customs which the community of your realm shall have chosen and will you defend and enforce them to the honour of God to the best of your ability?

The first two clauses are usual in the Oath, but the last is a new addition. Note the future perfect tense in the last clause, as if it has been anticipated that Edward will misbehave.

The Ordinances were documents that dealt with the grievances Edward had done against his magnates. Edward was pretty much forced into accepting a counsel of Ordainers. His recall of Gaveston from exile in June 1309 led to the Statute of Stamford in which concessions were made for the return of Gaveston’s wealth and lands – a small price to pay for the return of Edward’s favourite. However, Gaveston’s return wasn’t the main issues of the Statute. Other problems were rife and the magnates were unsettled – mainly financial and administrative issues that were left by Edward Longshanks after his death. Gaveston didn’t do much to help himself however. Rather than returning quietly, he riled up the other Earls by gifting them with nicknames that weren’t exactly flattering. Discord grew further and, whilst the Earl of Lincoln was reconciled with the King, Lancaster – the kings own cousin – grew estranged. Why the king and Lancs fell out isn’t really known. Several chroniclers mention it, but the information is tenuous at best. One mentions that Gaveston removed a member of Lancaster’s household from office, whilst another suggests that it was Gaveston’s recall itself. In more recent years it has been suggested that Lancaster was actually interesting in reforming government, rather than preventing Gaveston’s return.

By October 1309 ill-will towards Gaveston was becoming an issue however – so much so that the Earls of Lancaster, Lincoln, Warwick, Oxford and Arundel refused to attend a Council in York because of the Earl of Cornwall. They stated they would not come whilst the chief enemy of the kingdom was lurking in the king’s chamber, as it would be unsafe for them to do come (Vita) There was some discussion about the Earls attending only if they were armed, which Edward immediately told them under no uncertain terms to do, but he shifted Gaveston off to a safe hiding place. The Earls eventually came to parliament, but they ignored the Kings request and came armed.

By the parliament of 1310, a list of objections about the kings’ behaviour since he took the throne emerged. They included accusations such as he had been led by evil counsel, had become so impoverished that he could not defend the realm nor provide upkeep for his household, and that he had lost the lands in Scotland that his father had left for him. They over looked the £200,000 debt left by Edward’s father.

The king tried to ignore the petition put down by the Earls but the talk of civil war forced Edward to accept what they were asking. On the 16th march, 1310 twenty-one lord Ordainers were appointed – their aim was to reform the kings household and the kingdom. Only two earls, Warenne and Oxford, did not join the campaign for reform. It clearly shows how much Edward had segregated his magnates from him.

Edward, however, wasn’t content to sit back and take the Ordinances. He immediately began to organise a Scottish campaign and moved his law courts and exchequer to York – perhaps to hinder the Ordainers work. Further dissent became obvious when Pembroke, Arundel, Hereford and Lancaster refused to attend the expedition to Scotland. The Earl of Lincoln’s death in 1311 strengthened Lancaster’s position further as his lands passed to the Kings cousin. The Scots campaign didn’t amount to anything anyway and Edward’s hand was forced when a disagreement between Gloucester and Lancaster threatened to spill into violence. Tension was growing and even with the disunity of the Ordainers, civil war against the king by his magnates was beginning to look like a very real possibility. Backed into a corner, Edward relented and published the ordinances on the 30 September, 1311.

The main clause the contemporary chroniclers recorded was the banishment of Gaveston. He was accused of misleading the king, embezzling the royal treasury, forcing the king to alienate crown land, and encouraging the king to make war against his barons without consent. Gaveston was given till All Saints day in 1311 to leave the kingdom. Gaveston’s favouritism with the king became the backdrop for the Ordinances.

Despite all the talk, the Ordainers didn’t really have much power to enact them. the king still had the final say over the daily running of government and he also had the power to manipulate the officers of the state.

A second set of ordinances were drawn up in November 1311, despite the fact their powers had been dispelled by Michaelmas (29 September). The documents weren’t legal and resulted in the king’s irritation at being treated like a child. Gaveston was smuggled back into the kingdom, despite his exile and was rumoured to have spent Christmas with the king. Edward sought to get rid of the ordinances and reinstate Gaveston.

Gaveston’s return led to his excommunication by Archbishop Winchelsea, and Lancs, Pembroke, Hereford, Arundel and Warwick promised to bring about Cornwall’s arrest. Edward’s behaviour even forced the neutral earls to back the Ordainers.

The king fled to Newcastle with Gaveston, but was followed by Lancaster. Gaveston fled to Scarborough whilst the King moved to Knaresborough. Without the King’s protection, Gaveston was forced to surrender to Pembroke on the 19 May 1312. Warwick intercepted Pembroke and took Gaveston from him, holding the Earl at Warwick castle, whilst the earls debated how to proceed legally. Gaveston was sentenced to death for treason under the authority of the Ordinances – the legality of the act somewhat questionable. Gaveston was executed on 19 June 1312 at Blacklow Hill.

Gaveston’s death solidified Edward’s and Lancaster’s shaky relationship. Pembroke was angry with Warwick for seizing the earl of Cornwall, and civil war seemed likely. It was Gloucester who managed to mediate and finally a truce was reached.

By October 1313 a public apology was made for the murder of Gaveston, acknowledging that they had killed him when the Ordinances were not in motion – therefore illegally.

Over all the ordinances were a failure and did little to reform the kingdom. New problems in Scotland forced the issue to the back of the Earls minds.

Sources Used:

• Childs, W, Vita Edwardi Secundi, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
• Foedera, II, i, p.36, from a schedule attached to the Close Roll
• Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. 18 ff. 1v, 80 printed in J.R.S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307-1324 (Oxford, 1972), appendix 4
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999).

Adoptive Brotherhood or Lovers? Gaveston and Edward

Most people might not know much about Edward's reign but have probably read Christopher Marlowe's play, Edward the Second, at school, college or maybe just for fun. Well, for a start take everything you read in that play and ignore it. Wipe the slate clean and come back with a clean board. The play's main focus is on the issue of Edward's supposed homosexual relationship with Gaveston. I guess its not a surprising jump considering most amateur historians in the sixteenth century also thought the relationship was sexual, but as historians we're taught to be objective... so lets be objective!

The relationship between Edward II and Piers Gaveston is one that has been a topic of discussion for many years. I guess in essence it is the big scandal of his reign. The ambiguity has caused historians to question the nature of their friendship and as such a number of theories have grown from this. Due to the extreme way in which Edward treated Gaveston, putting him even before his own family and his wife, many believe that the relationship must have been of a sexual nature – although this is a view that has changed over time.

It is important not to fall into this trap and assume that because Edward did favour Gaveston so highly that something else must have been going on between them, as many historians over the years prior to Chaplais’ book have done so, even going so far as to claim that homosexuality between the king and Gaveston was a certainty. This can never be a certainty. We weren't there in the 1300s... and unless someone has a flux capacitor hidden in their basement we will never known. As such the best that can be offered is guess work based on the evidence that is present.

The most notable piece on the relationship between Edward and Gaveston is by Pierre Chaplais, who challenge the idea of a sexual relationship that had become so embedded into the narrative of Edward's reign that its almost taken for granted that he was homosexual.

Chaplais dismisses the notion of homosexuality on a number of factors. Firstly he draws attention to the French King, Philippe, and the father of Edward’s wife. He claims that Philippe would never have allowed Isabella to marry Edward if there had been any question about his integrity. His stance on this is feasible when you look into Philippe’s own biography and his actions with the Templars. It is unlikely that the French King would allow his daughter to marry Edward if he suspected his sexual tendencies lay with men. Not only that but more attention would have been drawn to Edward's sexual preferences if they lay with men. Sodomy was, after all, a mortal sin in this period. Therefore we must conclude that Edward and Gaveston’s relationship at this point was either not homosexual, nor had there been any whisperings of such an act.

To put his relationship with Gaveston into context, I guess we have to look at it from Edward's point of view. The King would have been in his mid-twenties when he was married to the twelve year old Isabella. It's understandable to think that the man would not want to spend time with his child-bride, and would instead favour the company of men his own age. He had grown up with Gaveston in his household. Is it really that strange to believe that he would prefer his company over Isabella's???

With that in mind, other reasoning’s for why Edward held Gaveston above all others, asides from a sexual relationship, must be found and Chaplais offers an alternative view.

Chaplais himself acknowledges right off the bat that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest what the relationship between the king and Piers Gaveston was but his theory, despite that, is credible.

In his works, Chaplais describes a situation were Edward and Gaveston had ‘contracted an artificial bond of fraternity' (Chaplais, p.5) and he lists a number of reasons as to why he believes this is plausible. Drawing on certain elements from the chronicles of Edward’s reign, namely the Vita Edwardi Secundi and the Annales Paulinis, Chaplais picks up on some occasions were the author of the chronicles refer to Gaveston as his ‘brother’. It seems that the majority of his argument for brotherhood diverges from this.

Indeed, it is true that contemporary chronicles from Edward’s reign do mention Gaveston as the adopted brother of Edward. The Vita itself states that ‘…they had put to death a great earl, whom the king had adopted as a brother, whom the king cherished as a son, whom the king regarded as a companion and friend’ (Vita, p.51). This passage does not imply a sexual relationship but more a close personal attachment. Brother in my mind seems to hint at something platonic. The ‘Chronicle of the Civil Wars of Edward II’ also states a ‘compact of brotherhood' (Chaplais, p.6) existed between the two men. From these declarations it is easy to see why Chaplais drew the conclusion that Edward obviously saw Gaveston as something more than just a vassal. However he is not quick to jump to conclusions and recognises that this term could simply symbolise the affection Edward felt towards Gaveston.

The use of the word brother within the contemporary texts is not, however, a substantial argument for brotherhood between the two men and it is here that Chaplais draws on his most compelling point to push his theory further. Referring to the ‘Chronicles of the Civil War of Edward II’, Chaplais notes a passage that can indeed have a alternative meaning; ‘the king’s son felt so much love for him that he entered into a compact of brotherhood with him and chose and decided to tie himself to him, against all mortals, in an unbreakable bond of affection' (Chaplais, p.12-13). In all the other chronicles Gaveston is simply referred to ‘brother’ or ‘adoptive brother’. This passage suggests, as Chaplais points out, something more formal which he compares to a number of brotherhood compacts that had been concluded in the past.

Using the example of figures such as Jonathan and David, Edmund Ironside and Cnut as well as various other people strengthens the case marginally but is not concrete proof for an agreement such as this being concluded between the King and Gascon knight. There is no written evidence of such a contract existing but even so it gives historians pause to think. However, if the relationship that existed between the King and his Gascon squire was a formal bond of fraternity, perhaps in the military style, then this argument causes a number of issues. Edward was often described as being interested in ‘unkingly activities' (Haines, 1988, p.36) and had not been involved in tournaments when he was younger. In fact his lack of interest in military matters makes Chaplais’ argument somewhat problematic and so the question must be addressed as to why Edward would enter into such a contract if he had no interest in warfare?

Chaplais carefully counters this point by stating that Edward’s unenthusiastic view of warfare probably made such an oath appealing as it meant he would therefore have a skilled man, as Gaveston was, at his side. On first appearances this stands up well to scrutiny however there is a counter-argument that cannot be ignored. In official documents Edward’s wet nurse was noted as ‘the king’s mother…who suckled him in his youth’ (Chaplais, p.3). This suggests that evidently Edward chose to recognise people he was close to in this manner, bringing them into his family fold so to speak. Following that train of thought it is easy to see how Gaveston could begin to be viewed as his adoptive brother but this does not necessarily lend itself to a formal compact, especially in light of the fact that there was no written evidence of this. Perhaps the use of the word brother literally meant that Edward viewed him as a brother and has little to do with agreements or compacts.

Another aspect to be looked at is the idea of Edward as an unwilling king. Chaplais notes this himself, dismissing the idea that he was an incompetent king, as has been suggested by others in the past. If this was the case then a compact of brotherhood would have made sense. Edward could have placed menial tasks that he did not want to carry out on another person but that individual would have to be someone he trusted completely. This was not an unusual act for a king to do and Gaveston appears to fit that title extremely well. He had grown up with Edward and been a member of his household for many years. Perhaps that is why Gaveston was left as regent whilst Edward was in France, rather than his own half brothers.

Even before he became king, Edward’s relationship with Gaveston was beginning to surface, so much so that Edward I sent the man into exile after his son tried to grant him the county of Ponthieu. Chaplais sees this act as a sign of the compact, stating that in order to be involved in such an agreement both parties had to be on an equal par. Ponthieu would enable the social gap to close somewhat. Despite not receiving Ponthieu, Gaveston was eventually raised to Earl of Cornwall, making him one of the most powerful magnates in the country and thus achieving a nearing social status to the king.

Prior to Chaplais’ book some academics believed that the relationship between Edward and Gaveston was of a homosexual nature. Taking the words of the chronicles literally, historians like Hamilton drew on written evidence such as the king loved Gaveston ‘unswervingly' (Vita, p.9) and believed that his actions meant that the men must have been sexually involved. However it is important to remain objective without the proof necessary to show either way what happened.

Chaplais’ argument on a whole does raise a number of valid points and as such it can be viewed as a useful source, despite the lack of evidence to prove his case. As he rightly suggests the idea of a sexual relationship between the two men is one that would have been noted, probably with horror, by his contemporaries and yet there is no concrete confirmation of this in any sources. However without finding a written document of this compact this matter remains a mystery and academics will continue to ponder over the meaning of Edward and Gaveston’s relationship. Me?? I like to think they were more than just friends - but then, I'm a gossip monger.

Sources Used:

• Chaplais, P, Piers Gaveston: Edward II’s Adoptive Brother, (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1994)
• Childs, W, Vita Edwardi Secundi, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
• Fryde, N, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326, (Cambridge University Press,1979)
• Haines, R.M, King Edward II: Edward of Caernarfon, His Life, His Reign and Its Aftermath, (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003)
  Hamilton, J.S, ‘Menage a Roi. Edward II and Piers Gaveston’, History Today (June, 1999), 26-31.
• Hamilton, J.S, Piers Gaveston: Earl of Cornwall 1307-1312 (Wayne State University Press,1988)
• Philips, J.R.S, 'Edward II 1284-1327: King of England and Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aqutaine', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, May 2005, Online Edition)
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)

The Early Years 1307-1312: Piers Gaveston and Edward

Ok so firstly a little background on Piers Gaveston himself. He was the son of Arnaud de Gabaston, a Gascon Knight and Claramonde de Marsan. Arnaud himself fought in Wales in 1282-3 for Edward I (Longshanks), as did his son in 1297 and as such Piers found himself as a servant (or squire I suppose) in the household of Edward by 1300. His family owned estates but they weren't particularly high within the nobility but Gaveston's wit and sharp mind made him an excellent role model for the sixteen year old Prince of Wales. The main problems of the reign in this first period are often attributed to the problems Gaveston's status as Edward's favourite caused amongst the other magnates.

Before Edward had even ascended the throne, he was already in trouble with his father and was even cut off in 1305. Yeah even if the medieval period, cutting your kid's pocket money was in full force. It's nice to know parenting hasn't changed that much! But by 1307 Piers Gaveston's relationship with Edward was already causing the King worry. Edward wanted to give his friend the County of Ponthieu, which wouldn't have been an issue except the guy who was the Lord of Ponthieu was still alive and well. Interestingly enough, Michael Prestwich in his book The Three Edwards says that Edward Longshanks was so angry with his son that he actually tore clumps of the Prince of Wales' hair out! (1980, p.80) Afraid of the influence the Gascon man had over Edward, the old King banished Gaveston from the kingdom. This, unfortuantely for Gaveston, was the first of many exiles he experienced during his life time. Although in all honesty, considering his fate he would have been better finding a nice little castle in Gascony and staying there till old age.

Rumours of a sexual relationship seem to have started with some of the ambiguous phrasing in the contemporary sources themselves. In the fourteenth century the majority of sources we have are chronicles, which were written usually by monks, and usually were not written for a public audience. In Edward's reign there were a number of these chronicles and, unsurprisingly, they all mention Gaveston and Edward's relationship.

The Vita Edwardi Secundi, probably the most well written and accurate of the chronicles, states that Edward was ‘incapable of immoderate favour’ (Vita, p.39) when it came to Gaveston. Another chronicle, the Anonimalle states similarly that ‘this king loved with all his heart certain people whose company his father had frequently forbidden him…’ (Anonimalle, p.81). The Scotichronicon also talks about Edward II’s relationship with Gaveston and his dislike for the man is notable - although you should take note of the fact that this chronicle was highly pro-Scottish at a time when the English were ravaging Scotland and his dislike for Edward anyway is apparent throughout. The line that is most striking within the text is the ‘…king deferred so much to the advice and wishes of the said Peter de Gaveston that practically all his kingdom rose against him’ (Scotichronicon, p.339). Gaveston was as much king as Edward was without wearing a crown and in fact another chronicle, the Annales Paulini, even says that there were two kings ruling in England, one in name, the other in deed (Annales Paulini, p.259). This sentiment doesn't necessarily lend itself to a sexual relationship and indeed, you have to wonder if it is modern day thinking that has taken these words out of context. I will come back to discuss in more detail at a later date the various arguments that have arisen about Gaveston and Edward's sexual relationship at a later date.

Gaveston's Coat of Arms

What is obvious though is that Edward was extremely fond of the man and in fact his first deed as king following the death of Longshanks was to recall Piers from exile in Gascony and give him the Earldom of Cornwall!!! Not bad for a small fry landowner's son. Despite the fact that Cornwall was usually held for the sons of the King, there was no real objection to Gaveston being raised into the peerage. So far so good. Gaveston then went on to marry Margaret de Clare, the sister of the Earl of Gloucester and niece to the King on the 1 Nov 1307 - a fairly substantial marriage considering Piers himself wasn't from high birth.

De Clare Coat of Arms

There was no limit on Gaveston’s rise and he was even left as regent when Edward went to France to complete his marriage to Isabella Capet in December 1307, rather than his own half brothers. Gaveston was becoming deeply involved in dealing with those affairs that usually fell to the king himself. He was even granted the ability to bestow patronage!! Now to put this in context, first you must understand how patronage worked in the middle ages.

In the simplest terms I can think patronage was the kings way of rewarding his subjects for good deeds and loyalty. You behave well, you get a scrap of land to add to your collection. You behave better than well and maybe you'll get a castle out of it. Kings relied on patronage to keep their magnates loyal to them (and barons relied on the favour to gain power). One of the main problems throughout Edward's reign was his inability to correctly use patronage. In fact he used patronage so badly that most of his magnates turned against him. Giving Gaveston control of this was a BIG deal - even if it only was temporary. That said, surprisingly Piers didn't abuse this power at all. I'm not sure if that says more about his respect for Edward, England or simply his disinterest in politics.

Gaveston as well as being 'graceful and agile in body, sharp-witted, refined in manners and well versed in military matters' (Chronicon Galfridi le Baker, p.4) was also great at tournaments. Well they didn't have TV in those days so showing off their military skills was how they had fun. Problem was that Gaveston was a damn good fighter and in a tournament in Wallingford on the 2 December 1307 Gaveston beat the Earls of Arundel, Hereford and Warenne. This did not go down well. It's men and testosterone I think, but the humiliation of being beaten by Gaveston did not sit well, and in fact Warenne never liked him from that point on.

But it was the Coronation of Edward on the 25 Feb 1308 were tension starts to become noticeable and resentment starts to grow amongst the Earls. Gaveston was given the crown of St Edward the Confessor to carry, redeemed the curtana sword and fasten the spur to the king's left foot. His attire at the coronation itself was loud and his behaviour offended Isabella's family so much so that they left angrily. It sounds like any family gathering doesn't it? Either way by the Spring of 1308 the magnates were starting to voice objections about Piers and the Earl of Lincoln presented the King with articles, pressing for Gaveston's exile once more.

What Scarborough Castle could have looked like

Under the looming threat of civil war, and also the possibility of an Anglo-French war with Isabella's family, Edward had no choice. Piers was given his marching orders and told he had to leave the kingdom by the 24 June, and that if he returned he would be excommunicated by Archbishop Winchelsey.

But Edward wasn't content to let his friend go without a fight and immediately started searching for a way to bring Gaveston back. He appointed him the King's Lieutenant in Ireland, despite the fact the position had already been filled by the Earl of Ulster. Not a bad exile this second one. Gaveston ended up with more power than when he left the kingdom, despite supposedly being in disgrace. He was granted LOTS more power than Ulster had been in the same position but still did not abuse it.

Scarborough Castle today

By 1309, Gaveston was allowed to return back to England thanks to Edward's attempts to have his exile revoked. It was in this time that Gaveston's smart mouth got him into a lot of trouble. He kind of reminds me of the lippy teenager of the group, pushing the boundaries because he knows Edward will protect him. But anyway, he made up names for the Earls - none of which were particularly flattering. The Earl of Warwick was gifted the wonderful title of the 'Black dog of Arden', Pembroke was 'Joseph the Jew', and Lancaster was 'the churl'. Obviously, this caused a lot of tension between the earls and Gaveston - and inevitably the King - and it REALLY didn't help that our Piers was damn good at fighting and beat the lords in a number of tournaments prior to Edward's coronation. In this day and age I think I would have probably melted at the sight of Mr P. Gaveston. The chroniclers say that he was good looking, he can fight AND win, and he's got a sense of humour. He's practically husband material for me right now!

View of Warwick Castle, Warwickshire - Originally a Norman stronghold

This latest slur against the magnates lead to the Ordinances. I'll come back to these at a later date in more detail, but essentially they were a list of reforms, aimed at shaking the Royal household - and the kingdom - back to its former glory. Edward, knowing he had no choice but to listen to his earls, decided avoidance was the best tactics and instead of sitting down and talking about it he organised a campaign into Scotland. But the Scots wouldn't fight and Edward was forced to face the music. Piers was exiled for the third time on the 1 November 1311 under clause 20 of the Ordinances, and was never allowed to step foot in England or any of the districts owned by England under the threat of excommunication.

Artists impression of the execution of Gaveston

Piers was back in England by the 13 January 1312 - no more than two months after being banished forever from the kingdom. In understanding this return, we must realise that Gaveston's wife, Margaret de Clare, had just given birth to his daughter, Joan and that he did spend his time at her side in York. Perhaps his return was for her and not Edward. I guess we will never know the motivation of Gaveston in this incident. The romantic half of me hopes it was for his wife's sake that he risked breaking the terms of his exile.

Blacklow Hill - Where Gaveston was executed. The monument is dedicated to him

Edward's cousin, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster led the opposing force against Gaveston's reinstatement. Gaveston under the threat of Lancs and other barons ran and hid out in Scarborough, whilst the King went to York. Finally Piers had to surrender and was taken into custody by the Earl of Pembroke. However, Warwick decided he wanted to be involved and seized Gaveston from Pembroke, taking the man back to his own castle in Warwick. A brief deliberation was held between Warwick, Lancaster and Hereford and on the 19 June 1312, Gaveston was led down the road to Kenilworth and was executed at Blacklow Hill.

A lot of blame has been placed at Gaveston's feet for the political unrest in this period and the dissention amongst Edward and his nobility. However it is important to note that Edward followed a formidable ruler and was also left a country that was in dire financial straits. Gaveston's execution certainly affected the King badly and his thirst for revenge against the lord's who had instigated his favourite's downfall was consuming. According the Vita Edwardi Secundi, Edward was reported to have said 'When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers’ (Vita, p.104) and he did get his revenge.

Sources Used:

• The Anonimalle Chronicle 1307-1334: from Brotherton Collection MS. 29, ed. Childs, W, Taylor, J, Yorkshire Archaelogical Society Record Series, cxlvii, (1991)
• The Annales Paulini, February 1308
• Bower, W, Scotichronicon, vol. 6, Books XI and XII, ed. Watt, D.E.R, (1991, Aberdeen University Press)
• Childs, W, Vita Edwardi Secundi: The Life of Edward the Second, (2005, Claredon Press, Oxford)
• Denholm-Young, N, The Vita Edwardi Secundi: the Life of Edward the Second by the so-called Monk of Malmesbury, (1957, Thomas Nelson and sons LTD, London)
• Hamilton, J.S, ‘Gaveston, Piers, earl of Cornwall (d. 1312)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
• Marlowe, C, Edward the Second, (1594), ed. Forker, C.R, (1999, Manchester University Press)
• Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (1980, Methuen and Co. Ltd, London)
• Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999).

An Introduction to Edward

For details of biographical accounts of historical figures, I would suggest using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Database, which, thank god, has an online facility. Trying to find those articles in the library is a nightmare... it involves wasted days negotiating the stacks and crying when you can't find the right folder. But anyway... a highly useful source complied by lots of overly intelligent historians who have more knowledge on people than is probably safe for them to have.

The article on Edward is written by a guy called J.R.S Philips and his biographical account of him is really useful in gaining a basic understanding of the king. But enough plugging websites, and historians. Lets move on to the King in question.

I have to say Edward II is a particularly interesting character. He was born in Caernarvon, Wales, in 1284 to Edward I and Eleanor of Castile.

A view of Caernarvon - built by Edward I

Many historians depict him as a tyrant - and for very good reason - but his reign was something of a disaster from start to finish. Too many favourites, too many hangings of nobles and a blatant disregard for his own wife - as well as his own barons - made Edward very unpopular, and as we all know that socially popularity counts for a hell of a lot. I mean, it's not quite the cheerleaders and jocks scenario but its close enough. You've gotta keep the little guys under you happy or else they find a way to get rid of you... And that's pretty much what happens to our Edward.

Edward II... He was rumoured to be really tall but I'm not getting the tall, dark handsome vibe from this picture!

He was eventually deposed... murdered... abdicated... ran off to Italy to live a life of sun, sea and sand... well, maybe not sun, sea and sand, but take your pick of those options because honestly we have no idea what the hell happened to the guy. But we'll come back to that at a later date.

Ed himself was from a large family. Not that this was particularly unusual in the medieval period but Eleanor and Edward the First had at least fourteen kids. Yeah I know, it makes me ache even thinking about that without an epidural! Although mortality rates being what they were in those days a lot of them didn't survive which was how Edward became the sole surviving male heir.

It's a mistake to assume because he was a king that Edward could write. He could certainly speak French - the Norman influence of William I was still deeply ingrained in English society even three hundred years after his conquest - but Mr J.R.S. Philips suggest he couldn't speak Latin because his Coronation Oath was said in French. A shrewd assensment and further backed up by a papal letter to the Pope thanking him for the translation from Latin to French.

As Princes of the realm go, Edward was pretty much set up from the age of seven. When his mother died he inherited Ponthieu and Montreuil. Not bad for a kid not even in double figures. That said, I'm guessing he wasn't overly bowled over by his betrothal to the Count of Flander's daughter. As with all medieval kiddie's he was promised to her, but this was annulled by the Pope himself in 1298 following one of those pesky Anglo-French wars. These days parents moan about their kids sponging off them, in those days they used to use their children as bargaining tools. Progress, you've gotta love it.

Anyway the only really good thing to come out of this - or bad thing with hindsight - was the betrothal of our Edward to Isabella of France. Ok, so get your head out of Disney movies and come back to the reality of the situation, this betrothal wasn't about love and all that mushy crap, but it was a politically motivated move to keep peace between England and France. Love didn't really feature highly in the medieval landscape, and sons and daughters were pretty much only useful for keeping your neighbours from invading your lands and stealing your pocket money.

I'm guessing if the picture on the left is a true depiction of her then Edward must have been pretty upset when she tipped up his doorstep proclaiming to be his future wife. Medieval artists really aren't that flattering! Anyway, a little info on Isabella herself. As I've mentioned she was French, part of the Capetian dynasty in fact, and she was apparently nicknamed the She-Wolf of France... Nice name - if you believe it. It has a certain ring to it anyway. Her father was Philippe (or Philip) IV of France and a lot of her family succeeded the French throne during Edward's reign. They didn't seem to live very long, French Kings.

Louis X was only on the throne for two years before he died. Not that Isabella's nephew, John, lasted any longer. He was king for five days before he was supposedly bumped off by the next King Philip V. This actually happened quite a lot in medieval history. A little bit of a detour but that was how Aethelred the Unrede came to be in power. His half brother, Edward was murdered in Corfe castle in the tenth century. It's good that they learnt from history and used that information wisely. Yes, our medieval ancestors were a pretty nasty bunch. Politics haven't really changed all that much even today.

By 1300, our little sixteen year old Edward had become Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. Add that to Montreuil and Ponthieu and I guess he was doing pretty well for himself. Surprisingly, he was also fairly popular in Wales, which, considered the dislike for the English, was astounding. It was possibly a clever ploy by Edward I to have his son born in Caernarvon for that reason. It made Edward II at least a little bit Welsh and therefore slightly more bearable as a ruler. I guess they must have liked him because the Welsh were loyal to him even after he was imprisoned later on in his reign.

By the age of 21, our Princeling was causing trouble. He fell out with his father's treasurer, a guy called Walter Langton. Langton was the Bishop of Lichfield and Conventry as well - Jack of All Trades. He was favoured by Ed I, and even became the Keeper of the Realm in his absence. However, his popularity was not shared by others. Archbishop Winchelsey (of Canterbury)disliked the man intently, as did our Edward, and following the death of Edward I he continued to fall in and out of favour with Edward II. However, following their fall out in June 1305, Langton and the young Edward were finally reconciled in October 1305 but the Bishop was never granted the same trust as he had received from Edward I.

On an architectural note, Langton did a lot of work on his bishopric seat in Lichfield and was responsible for the Lady Chapel there, which I have to say is really beautiful. If you ever get a chance to pop into the Cathedral you should really go. It just dominates the Lichfield landscape.

The frontage of Lichfield Cathedral, Staffordshire

Edward's first toe into the grand pool of military matters came in April, 1306 when his father gave him control of an invading force in Scotland. Needless to say, it didn't go well. Tyranny got the better of the twenty-one year old and was rebuked for his cruelty against the Scots. Yup, Edward got a little sword happy, had to be brought home and was told off by his daddy. Edward never really managed to establish himself as a great military leader like his father as we will see from his repeated defeats.

Anywho Edward I died in July 1307 and his son, Edward of Caernarvon became King Edward II of England. I have to say from the moment the crown touched our Edward's head things just went from bad to worse. He fell out with pretty much every single one of his magnates, as well as his wife, successfully annoyed the French and the Scots and generally just made a mess of everything.

The first point of contention - and possibly one of the major failings of Edward himself - was his choice in favourites. Piers Gaveston being the first, but not the last. A Gascon knight, he was a member of Edward's household from 1300. Gaveston was a bit of a bugger. He was exiled from the kingdom a grand total of three times and managed to annoy practically every earl he so much as looked at. Of course it probably didn't help that the man had names for them all - and they weren't exactly flattering. The Earl of Lincoln was slapped with the name 'belly-buster', Earl of Lancaster was 'the fiddler', 'the actor' or 'the churl', Pembroke became 'Joseph the Jew' and Warwick was gifted the wonderful title of 'the black dog of Arden'. Needless to say this didn't do a lot for Gaveston's popularity; he did eventually lose his head.

But this is where it gets interesting. The relationship between Ed and Gaveston is somewhat ambiguous and there is some contention amongst the academic world about whether or not their relationship was of a sexual nature. Historians such as J.S. Hamilton suggest it may well have been in his book, (Piers Gaveston) but since there is no proof it is difficult to say. His article in History Today called Menage a Roi is particularly interesting reading and offers a slightly less biased view of the whole thing. However, for a recent argument on Gaveston/Edward the best source is Chaplais. His theory is that the pair of them were in a compact of Brotherhood. Now, I've studied his argument and what others have said but I'm not entirely convinced either way. Chaplais puts forward a number of good points (all of which I will discuss in a later blog) but due to the lack of evidence we will never know. Although if he was gay it would be such a great scandal! It could practically be a soap opera!

Anyway, in 1307 Edward was supposed to travel to France to complete his marriage to Isabella. However, he didn't go. Instead he went to meet Gaveston who had been exiled by the late Edward I. Great way to start a marriage I feel. I'm not entirely sure I would have been happy with my new husband for jolting me for his friend but still.

Edward buried his father, made Gaveston Earl of Cornwall, completed his marriage, imprisoned the aforementioned Walter Langton and was eventually crowned in April 1308.

Sources used for those of you geeky enough to want to do further reading:

• Chaplais, P, Piers Gaveston: Edward II’s Adoptive Brother, (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1994)
• Hamilton, J.S, Piers Gaveston: Earl of Cornwall 1307-1312 (Wayne State University Press,1988)
  Hamilton, J.S, ‘Menage a Roi. Edward II and Piers Gaveston’, History Today (June, 1999), 26-31.
• Hamilton, J.S, Gaveston, Piers, Earl of Cornwall and Royal Favourite, (Oxford University Press, 2004) online edition, Jan 2005, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• Parsons, J.C, Isabella, (1295-1358) Queen of England, Consort of Edward II, (Oxford University Press, 2004) online edition, Jan 2005, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• Philips, J.R.S, Edward II (1284-1327) King of England and Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquataine, (Oxford University Press, 2005) online edition, May 2005, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Greetings

I'm a third year history student in medieval history and I know for many history is one of those things that is made dull by academics rambling on and on about facts, figures and using words that have more syllables than would ever be necessary. As such I've decided to put together an idiots guide for those of us who like to learn but without needing an English degree in order to decipher the crazy inner workings of academics. In other words, I'm putting things in layman's terms!

At the moment I'm studying Edward the Second so he will be the starting point. I will use well known historical sources for this - most of which I've already raided from my university library!