Main > The Round Table

Edward II Conspiracy

(1/3) > >>

Todd Eriksen:
Here's the back story for those not familiar with the end of Edward II of England: Known as a weenie by his own father, Edward I, Ed II was considered a very weak king; lost a sure win battle against the Scots at Bannockburn; gave lands and titles to friends, throwing tradition to the wind; heaped titles and gifts upon his very close, (maybe lover?) arrogant, Piers Gaveston, who wasn't a true noble; his wife took off and openly had an affair with a guy named Roger Mortimer, who, as a team, took a French backed army to England, overthrew Ed II and forced him to denounce the throne to his son, Edward III (too young to rule, so conveniently Mortimer and his lover, Isabella, ruled in his stead; and eventually had Ed II assassinated either by starvation or a red hot poker shoved up his rectum at Berkeley Castle.  That's his history in a nutshell.
  A new theory has been put forth by author and historian, Ian Mortimer (no relation to Roger Mortimer).  He has unearthed 'evidence' that makes him believe that Ed II was not murdered but after an agreement with Mortimer, was secretly whisked away to Italy through connections in the Catholic Church and through his Italian ties, and lived incognito until his death many years later, and actually meeting with his son, Ed III, at one point. 

  This may or may not be true, but the theory is not what I want to discuss here.  What I really want to know is this:  Could a person of royalty, namely a king, psychologically be able to live incognito in a hermitage in a foreign country living a simple life?  I mean, come on, you were born into lot's of money, spoiled beyond your wildest dreams, used to getting your own way your whole life, answered to no one, and quietly gave up without a fight?  Is it possible?

Ian:
I think any monarch who at least had the opportunity to grow accustomed to the lavish royal lifestyle would have a hard time giving it up even to save their own life. Even a benevolent and kind king has got to be a little egomaniacal. I suppose it's possible but it seems unlikely. I'd be interested to hear the evidence that's makes Mortimer think this is the case. There goes the hot poker story!

Sir Edward:
I'd also want to hear more about this incognito lifestyle. It's possible he might have been able to live as a minor lord of some kind, and still enjoy a life surrounded by servants, but just on a smaller, less wealthy scale.

Sir William:
This theory was actually used as a plot device in Ken Follett's World Without End; in the book there was a letter that outlined how Ed II escaped and it was being sought out by the Queen Isabella's men (who never found it, it was buried until it could be used).  Anyway, it sounded interesting if a bit implausible but that is due to me attributing modern day sensibilities to ousted King as I have no idea how he truly thought and acted back then.  Beyond what was left behind in text for us to discover.

If Ed II was as weak as historical documents suggest, then maybe he would've been simply happy to keep his craven life?  And maybe his son, after coming into his own, secretly fed him funds so he would not have to live out his days in poverty?

But even that is not unheard of- especially if he became a monk; by the very doctrine he would've lived in poverty.  Who is to say?  I too am very interested in what facts Ian Mortimer has unearthed that give rise to this theory.

Sir James A:
I'm going to borrow heavily from the internets, since Edward II is somebody I know nothing about (Edward III being the 'cool guy' :) ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England


--- Quote ---Edward became heir apparent at just a few months of age, following the death of his elder brother Alphonso. His father, a notable military leader, trained his heir in warfare and statecraft starting in his childhood, yet the young Edward preferred boating and craftwork, activities considered beneath kings at the time.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---It was written that Edward II was "the first king after the Conquest who was not a man of business".[4] His main interest was in entertainment, though he also took pleasure in athletics and mechanical crafts.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---On 20 January 1327, Edward II was informed at Kenilworth Castle of the charges brought against him: The King was guilty of incompetence; allowing others to govern him to the detriment of the people and Church; not listening to good advice and pursuing occupations unbecoming to a monarch;
--- End quote ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieschi_Letter


--- Quote ---Fieschi is a well known historical figure. He had several livings in England and knew the country though the letter shows a confusion between the rank of a knight and that of a lord.
--- End quote ---

Activities unbecoming a monarch / unfitting of a king, and a primary interest in entertainment, makes it seem mildly plausible. If he didn't have much interest in being a king and was considered a terrible king by his own subjects, leaving the position wouldn't seem much of a big deal. The primary interest in "entertainment", maybe to him not being a king was "playing a part" in an attempt to portray and live as if he were actually who he is not?

Fieschi's having "several livings" (if livings means house?) would mean he's fairly well off. Seems an environment someone of royalty might be comfortable in?


--- Quote ---Many local dignitaries were invited to view the body from a distance, but it had been embalmed and may have been unrecognisable. For the first time a carved wooden effigy of the dead king was carried through the streets rather than the body on a bier.
--- End quote ---

Conspiracy theory says "hmm, interesting!". :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page