Talk:Edward II of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edward II

Is there any particular reason you removed all references to Edward II's homosexuality from his page? Although I am not an expert on this, it seems there's enough evidence that it at least warrents a mention.

Basil Fawlty 06:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's okay to say that it was alleged that he was a fag, but so long as we don't add him to the "gay, lesbian and bisexual" category on Wikipedia, I think is alright. He was a weak and exploited king because he didn't have the right focus. That did not make him gay. Some contrived stories to help attack and displace a king do not deserve primary consideration and focus in our articles as the basis of our opinion of them. Besides that, I believe the Gay community trys too dishonestly to attach fame to their perversion in order to normalise it in every vein of society. This is like Black people trying to attribute European inventions and etc to Africans. Perverting the truth will not save it. Edward II was not a gay hero, despite what gays want to do to claim he's one of their icons and his enemies holding onto the misinformation to justify their perks from his fall. Kenneth Alanson 08:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove references to Edward's alleged homosexuality? Does it burn you so much to think that a king could have been homosexual? You talk about "fags" trying to revise history but it is obvious that you live in fear of the truth yourself. You fear the truth because it could hurt you. Most homosexuals on the other hand would not lose anything if it turned out that the stories about Edward's sexuality are baseless. They couldn't care less if he was homosexual in the first place. You seem to have much to lose, which is why you try to censor information so as to stop people from asking questions. --Ilmateur (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your anti-gay rant reeks of homophobia. Let the FACTS fall where they may. There is ample evidence that King Edward II was gay.68.219.235.65 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous stories on Edwards II alleged homosexuality and I think that they should be included here, as long as they are NPOV. The part Kenneth Alan removed was in place for 1.5 years and was written in a neutral way, so it should not have been deleted, IMHO. Kenneth Alan's message above shows that he is not very 'understanding of homosexuals' in general, by using the word 'pervert' in conjuction with gay people, which very well could be the reason he reverted it in the first place. Thorin 21:36, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

He did impregnate a teenager atleast twice. Any other stories of poofters impregnating teenager? Any of such stories outside of the British Isles?--Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, my free usage of terminology makes me American. I did some recent studying of Eddy the second and it appears things aren't the way they were laid out in this article. I'm sure most gays would still love to plaster him as an icon in the cause for gayness today. This is historical revisionism based on an exaggeration of his opponents' claims in order to dispose of him. Today, anti-king statements often get the blessing on a similar level to what power a Pope says in reference to things. Truth be told, Ed couldn't fill his father's enormous shoes and was paled by him in every respect. Often, royals would develop mass amounts of stress to try and live up to the legacy of their forebears and this would come upon them as a sort of nihilism that Ed most assuredly had by not meeting the professionalism of his father. Besides, if you look at the website of the royals, you will see that it mentions nothing of homosexuality. I am absolutely sure that gay toleraters would try and turn it around to say that of course the royals wouldn't say the truth. However, if you look at it more lucidly, you will see that Ed gave out his power to a few close people in succession and this is because he trusted them as opposed to various powerful factions striving to take it from him, due to his personal disinterest in the responsibility of kingship. Much can be seen with James VI/I as well, where he invested the power in those he thought uncorruptible, despite how unorthodox it may seem to those who want to absolutely control the monarchy for themselves. Obviously, the side affect to small power concentration is the impossibility of holding the power together, the very opposite of the king's intent, yet it is what conspirators view as proof of his homosexuality, despite no hard evidence. Just think about it, when there are many wanting the power, what other way to try to gain it but by displacing the few who actually hold it with vastly discrediting any move the ruler makes and distorting it for their gain...? Ed was trying to be an absolute monarch in a different vein of his father(his father already fought most relevant battles and won them so Ed found little reason to do anything but store the power with confidants, obviously making him sort of a flake when it comes to wielding fearful power that makes people fall in line with respect-which one can only do by building a monopoly with himself at the top), and ultimately failed because he had few rewards to give, when he wanted only those close to him to share with it. He was obviously in contraversion to oligarchy and that didn't serve many monarchs well, which was against such things as the Magna Carta and also, the Constitutional Monarchy that later developed prevented all of this. Køn Olsen 22:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(The above notice was written by User:Kenneth Alan under a pseudonym. This user has a history of subverting Wikipedia content to please his personal agenda. Why would any honest person use a pseudonym, anyway? Wikipedia is too transparent for such naive subterfuge. The contemporaries of both Edward II of England and James I of England, as well as their modern biographers, judge that their affection for their male favorites went beyond contemporary decorum. Subverting information is always despicable, whoever does it. Wetman 22:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))

No, this stuffy, dank library book reader with no concept of the educational freedom of the time the stories of HM King Edward II were made, isn't privy to understanding the times and the media control. The retort by this last Wikipedia editor is extremely snide and refuses to recall several other editors who use pseudonyms on an ever constant basis and the difference is, IMHO, they aren't under any scrutiny, but I am at this present time. It's not the first time I've encountered such libel by him and I'm not a baby, I can handle it. Regardless, you who are spectators to this little frenzy that just happened, please keep your mind in your head and not lose perspective to the article, by forgetting this defamation to my character. Køn Olsen 22:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aha, it seems that in the case of Edward II, he had a vengeful wife with a powerful lover to subvert the throne, which to me seems the big difference between the reigns of Edward and James VI/I. James didn't lose his throne because he had a more stable marriage with a more faithful wife not in much spite over James's time spent hard at work to control the kingdom via his favourites. Also, during James's time, it was often a priority for the King to attend the Kingship much as a career and not so much a family affair. However, his attempts to install the Divine Right Of Kings was barely convincing that he could enforce such power to the contemporary day English Peerage and was a direct recall to Edward's time in which Kings tried to appear godly. Interesting. Besides, aren't French women more promiscuous than Danish women? Aren't they more attracted to soap operas and the glam of feuds (a Mediterranean/Romance feature in their culture)? This could also account for Isabella's unfaithful affairs and Anne's relative peace with James's style of family life. User:Kenneth Alan 22:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Please note, the two references above from "Køn Olsen" and "Kenneth Alan" are the same person, who is now under a ban from Wikipedia Indisciplined (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I have reverted the article to include the section on homosexuality. Please note that using the phrase "fag", or referring to homosexuals as "perverts" is considered derogatory and therefore not NPOV. 81.156.181.197 18:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, just because you think Braveheart is gospel, doesn't make Edward II the way Hollywood portrayed him. What type of sad scholarship is this?? Mind you, I am watching Braveheart right now and notice several exaggerations and/or distortions throughout the movie. There are many things invented and are the sole device for increasing the ideal of Scottish independence. This movie will not get me to believe that Edward was gay. I notice the argument above me as unproductive. It seems that the truth is decided by politics and popularity factors. I hope for some acknowledgement of the truth without speculation to be the standards of articles, because this article happens to rely on inferences. Inferences do not add up in court, because they are inadmissable. Inventing truth, why, now that's a FICTION and irrational pretext, a justification for motives I have just spoken of. 24.255.40.174 17:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whomever you are, Braveheart (in which the battle across a swamp traversable only by a very narrow bridge is portrayed as being on wide open fields) has nothing to do with it. Its a long considered academic fact that Edward II was gay. CheeseDreams 18:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Please note that "CheeseDreams" has subsequently been identified as a Sock Puppet, and is now banned from editing wikipedia indefinitely Indisciplined (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

"Whoever", not "whomever". "Are" is a copulative verb and both arguments take the nominative. You made the same mistake in your next post below. By the way, if there exist persons who were then gay, I'd say the poor things are awfully old. And as for your statement that "it's a long considered academic fact that Edward II was gay," I think that "long considered academic fact" part sits within some very limited knowledge on your part.Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone considered themselves to be, or were considered to be, gay at that time. Slrubenstein

There exist persons whom by our definition of the word "gay" were. Just because a word does not exist doesn't mean that the value of it doesnt. The colour "indigo" did not exist as a colour word before Newton. However, the colour did. There was no word for the Tea plant in the 212th century BC, that doesn't prevent tea plants from having existed. CheeseDreams 11:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Please note that "CheeseDreams" has subsequently been identified as a Sock Puppet, and is now banned from editing wikipedia indefinitely Indisciplined (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think there's much doubt that Edward II had a homosexual relationship with Piers Gaveston, and in all likelihood, the Younger Despenser. Although not explicitly stated by chroniclers, they said of Edward and Gaveston "the King is lovesick for his minion." Adam of Orleton denounced the King as a "tyrant and a sodomite", following the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer. Froissart noted of the Younger Despenser "He was a sodomite, even it is said, with the King." Does that make him gay, as we would see it? I don't know. He had at least five children, and clearly enjoyed sexual relations with women. Perhaps that makes him bisexual in our terms.

Sean Fear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.11.71 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's "who", not "whom". Please get a book of grammar and learn why. Alcuin of York (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The quotation "the king is lovesick for his minion" comes from Christopher Marlowe's play "Edward II", circa 1592 - not a chronicle contemporary with Edward's reign. Edward had an illegitimate son Adam as well as his four legitimate children by Isabella (she also had one known miscarriage) so I suppose, by our terms, he was bisexual. AlianoreD (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Small aside

a small aside: is the story about Edward's allegedly gay lover being executed after his private parts were burnt in front of him, true?? i just read it on the internet. it's crazy what man will do to man.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.110.89.98 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2004 (UTC).

Yes, it is true. Thats one version of the "drawn" bit of "hung, drawn, and quartered". CheeseDreams 16:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Please note that "CheeseDreams" has subsequently been identified as a Sock Puppet, and is now banned from editing wikipedia indefinitely Indisciplined (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Translation: "Most likely it isn't true, but I like to read blogs that have a version that seems to me to make our argument stronger." Would you care to cite eyewitness accounts? Everything I've seen yet comes from later sources. Historical revision is bad. Thank you.Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Was Edward II gay? This dispute may never be solved, Why? Edward II (1284-1327) is in no condition to tell us if he was or not, (probably wouldn't tell us if he was). Mightberight/wrong 14:51, 27 October 2005

The simple fact that a google search of the term Edward II will bring up mostly sites suggesting he was homosexual requires it be addressed in the opening paragraph. If you have a problem with this perception, put it under a subheading of "Arguments over sexuality" and provide both POVs on the issue, but the fact that the public (rightly or wrongly) percieves it to be so requires that it be mentioned.

Suicidal mongoose 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake, mongoose, people on the web will say anything they damn well please. Al Gore is accused of claiming he invented the internet, though he never quite made that claim. George Bush is accused of "being AWOL" though had he actually been AWOL he'd have spent years in jail. Doesn't matter whether the claims are true, just keep saying something over and over, and sooner or later some mongoose is going to assert that because it was said so much, it must be true! Remember that claiming historical figures were gay has become the activists' favorite pastime; of course you're going to find a gazillion websites claiming it as true.Alcuin of York 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hot poker story?

I've long doubted the truth of the "hot poker story"; it bears too much resemblence to the death of Edward's brother-in-law, Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford. Humphrey was speared through the anus while fighting on a drawbridge by a pikeman hidden under the drawbridge. It's my suspicion that some confusion arose, or the story was deliberately changed, so the victim changed from the Earl of Hereford to the King of England for a more "ironic" death.

When does the "hot poker" story first arise? Any contemporary or near-contemporary reports?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mississippienne (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 March 2005 (UTC).

Ouch, if (supposed gay) Edward II was murdered this way, he was probably used to the OTHER kind of hot pokers? 28 October 2005—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.117.234 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

The poker story appeared 30 years after the supposed event. There are scholars who go as far as to suggest that Edward did not die in Berkely Castle, was alive in 1330, and the story was entirely concocted by Thomas Berkeley on Roger Mortimer's orders [1] and the discussion below seems to be reviewing those ideas also. --Alf ^melmac 09:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but English records hold his death in this manner (I can't remember which encyclopedia I used, but I'll try to find it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.130.104 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Email me if you find the cite. Jmm6f488 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In The Life and Times of Edward II by Caroline Bingham (p. 197) the story is credited to author Ranulf Higdon in his long historical chronical Polychronicon . Historians disagree when Higdon, (also spelled Higden) wrote his portion of the chronical. One editor dates his portion of the work to 1326 or 1327. See Higdon's Wikipedia page for more info. The chronical was apparently added to by several other authors. Caroline Bingham gives the story some credibility by stating the first person who translated the work into English, John Trevisa, became the vicar at Berkeley Castle not long after Edward II was murdered and while Thomas Berkeley was still alive. Thomas Berkeley was the lord of Berkeley Castle at the time Edward II was imprisoned and supposedly murdered there. He translated the passage regarding Edward II's death without comment, which Caroline Bingham takes to mean he did not disagree that was the way Edward II was murdered. The text in the Polychronicon is "Cum veru ignito inter celanda confossus ignominiose peremptus est" i.e. "He was ignominiously slain with a red-hot spit thrust into the anus."

Another author, Paul Doherty, in Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (p. 129-131) also cites other sources for the story. Chronica Monasterii de Melsa II, Meaux version p.355. He also names another contemporary chronicler, Swynbroke, Chronicle of Baker of Swynbroke (written in 1359 or 1360.) and Leiscestershire chronicler John of Reading, who said the hot poker story was based upon the confession of the guilty parties.

Jsternsp 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

John Trevisa wasn't even born until about 1342 and lived until 1402. He didn't become a chaplain at Berkeley until the late 1370s, half a century after Edward II's murder - hardly a contemporary source! The Thomas Berkeley who was Lord of Berkeley then was the *grandson* of the Thomas, Lord Berkeley who was Edward II's custodian, and was born in 1353. And Higden was writing in the 1340s, not 1326/27 - that date doesn't refer to when he was writing, but the time he was writing about. AlianoreD 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out the Thomas de la Moore quote, as it gives no source. Also, I notice the contributor said de la Moore's account was not published till after 1352(?) when the stub on Thomas De la Moore says he died sometime after 1347. At any rate, you need to cite the source, whatever it is. If someone wants to put in the Bingham and Doherty citations as mentioned above, they should do so.11 Arlington (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Fieschi Letter

This section is written in a POV manner without sources. It needs complete rewriting and proper sourcing to be of encyclopædic standard. FearÉIREANN 20:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried not to give a POV, but the variance between the letter and previously accepted history has to be explained. If you want sources, I have pasted the text of Fieschi letter below. The letter was discovered by a French archivist in the binding of an official register dated 1368 which had been the property of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne, and was preserved in the Archives Departmentales d'Herault at Montpelier. It is still there today. The letter has been tested and is not a later forgery. 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. The following is a faithful translation from the original Latin. I suggest that you read the letter and then send me your comments about where the article is faulty. Could it be that your concern is that the letter differs from what you thought you knew?

In the name of the Lord, amen Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I have taken care to be known to Your Highness.

First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the coast. There he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock, and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led him to Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places. And there, many people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you were crowned at the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him, after some little time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Barford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases you, I shall give you my clothes that you may better be able to escape.' Then, wearing the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison. And when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed. And, having got the keys out of the door, he opened it and went out, with his keeper. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, and fearing the indignation of the Queen, for fear of their lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in a chest, his heart having been extracted and maliciously presented to the Queen, as if they were the heart and body of your father; and, as the body of the King, the said porter was buried at Gloucester. Afer he had escaped from the prison of the aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together with his companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the castellan of the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys.

Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do, crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen days. Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been considered, and after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of devotion, he might see the [shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving Cologne, he crossed over Germany and headed for Milan in Lombardy.

In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo], in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.

Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant.

JMcC 09:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN has failed to respond to two messages asking about his doubts about factual accuracy. It is only possible to conclude that this user has no grounds for his objection. I have therefore removed the factual accuracy warning from this section. JMcC 09:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Supposed Life "After death"

I feel there should be some mention in the article about the belief that he was not killed and infact escapted. See the Letter section above. There is a fair amount of popular belief in this and even some scholars have argued this. Citing such things as the archetecutre at the hermitage that he supposedly lived out his life at, the above letter, and the manner which his body was displayed for viewing after his "death". There is also a fairly good argument that goes to debunking this, I have the articles somewhere but I have to find them so I don't want to add them myself just yet. If someone can remember them would you please add them. If the "hot-poker" story is included, which it should be since it is part of the mythology of Edward II, his supposed survival should be as well.

I also vaugley remember reading somewhere that Edward III supposedly met his father at some point later in his life but had no idea it was him as he was dressed as a hermit and did not let his son know. Anybody else remember anything like this? Or is this something I have come up with from something else? Some help with these things would be appreciated. FubarDac 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read a few times that another victim was used and Edward was smuggled out of the country to Lombardy and spent the rest of his life as a hermit. Maybe worth adding to the main article with a credible source? Lugnuts 18:31, 31 July 2006

I've read, in the recent biography of Roger Mortimer, that he was smuggled to Corfe and kept prisoner there. In relation to the article, that Edward III pressed charges against Roger over the death of his father, which is used to signify that Edward II was in fact dead, can be disputed by the same logic as to why Roger kept Edward II alive. Roger needed an extra hold over the young king, instead of just his mother, so the king was kept alive, after his supposed death, to allow the option that he might return. If Edward III denied his father's death, there might be a call from some of the Lords and Earls to reinstate his throne, thereby forcing the young Edward to abdicate. Concerning the tomb and hearse used during Edward II's burial, only a small number of people would have known about Edward II survival, so the abbots, clerks and people in charge of the funeral would not have known, and acted in good faith, and would have done the same if the king were dead, and this was his actual funeral. The chronicles saying that Edward was killed, were written in Northern England, the home of the Earl of Lancaster, an opponent of the Mortimer, and there by could be propaganda against Roger. The Earl of Kent was executed in 1330 for treason, ammounting to trying to rescue Edward II from prison, this was 3 years after the 'death' of Edward. Another piece of evidence was that Thomas de Berkeley, being tried alongside Roger in Parliament, pleaded that he couldn't have killed EdwardII because he was still alive. I cannot find sources for this apart from 'The Greatest Traitor', a biography of Roger Mortimer, sympathtic to his cause, and it's included bibliography.

What Thomas Berkeley said to Parliament was "nec unquam scivit de morta sua usque in presenti parliamento ipso" - "that he never even knew about that [Edward II's] death until the present Parliament". What exactly he meant by that is a matter for speculation. He didn't explicitly claim that Edward II was still alive. AlianoreD 07:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this section. Putting numerous sections in italics doesn't make it more believable, just makes it look like someone is over-wrought. I'm fine with presenting an argument that Edward II may have escaped, but not at accepting it at face value on the basis of ONE person's books.

Could someone who is knowledgeable enough to address this take a look at it and try to present some balance? I can come up with a half-dozen counter-arguments easily: these were people who were accustomed to killing so why would they have allowed someone as dangerous as Edward II to live? Would the people who have seen his body have been that easily fooled? Why did no one ever mention having made effigies to fake his body? If he was kept prisoner for 14 years, how did they manage to keep this quite that secret? NO ONE ever let it slip? The Earl of Kent being executed doesn't prove that Edward II was still alive, only that the Earl may have thought that he was.

I'm skeptical, but it could have happened that way. But a better discussion of the subject needs to be made. What is there now comes across as at best a one-sided rant, in my opinion.

71.236.155.174 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Despensers

The sections on the Despensers needs to be rewritten as it takes a tone that makes them sound like they were friends of the people when historical research shows the greatest abuses came during thier time in power. I believe at least one historian has pointed out that the barons and the commoners would have gladly taken Gaveston over them. FubarDac 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed two of the most obvious statements of opinion, but it needs considerably more work.

—FlashSheridan 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WHY ARE DEATH DATES INALTERABLE???

There's already a lot of speculation that Edward II survived the alleged assassination, but even then, the date was and is still uncertain.

Why, then, is there a "Sept 21 1327" as if carved in stone, inalterable? I've tried several times to add a "?" but to no avail.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Letter

Where has the Fieschi letter gone? There don't seem to be any references to it in the article, and the death of Edward, poker and all, seems to be described as certain (despite the fact that historians today generally accept that that story is hardly based on eyewitness accounts). I'm sure I remember it being here a few months ago, and now it seems to have vanished. So where is it? Surely something so highly relevant to Edward should be mentioned there? Accordingly, unless someone can give me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be there, I am going to elaborate upon the doubts surrounding Edward's death, and add a section regarding the letter (using 'The Greatest Traitor', by Ian Mortimer). Michaelsanders 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikify template

I added this because I think the new sections of the article need some Wiki links. I realise it's "work in progress", of course. Andrew Dalby 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs better referencing

I know nothing about this period in British history, but it looks like the legacy of this figure is disputed. I can't help but noticing that we have a very long article without any inline references. If this person is disputed then inline referencing will be required. I don't understand why a blog that "wishes to save the reputation of a beloved monarch" (or something along those lines) is listed as a source. This article needs solid referencing from printed works. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about blogs, or beloved Kings; I've been adding to the article over the last month or so, based on The Greatest Traitor, by Ian Mortimer - it's a biography of Roger Mortimer which also covers Edward II. That's the bit that the above note wants references for. Michaelsanders 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I just noticed the combination of a lack of inline references + an issue that looked slightly controversial, that's all. Good luck with the article. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noticed that the blog was listed under "See also", not the references section. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the blog. In fairness to it, when I had a look, it seem quite interesting, and it seemed source-based and informative; nonetheless, the premise, and the temporary nature of the link, makes me feel uneasy about keeping it. Which is not to say that links to of Edward II as a good person should be discouraged; but something a bit more 'high-class' (i.e. a reputable webpage, text by a reputable author, or even simply something more permanent) would, I think, be better. Michaelsanders 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the above: if we are to be as fair and unbiased as possible, we need to include in the 'see also' section either links to an even spread of views of Edward II, or no links to such things. With the removal of the blog link, it is now slightly pointless - we have the Marlowe link (I seem to recall that Marlowe was pretty harsh to Edward), the link to historical sexuality (having looked, the wikipedia article there has practically nothing on Edward), and nothing of great value to anyone who wants to find out more online. So some links to anything which can tell us more about Edward - facts, views, etc - would be useful; but, I would think, it would have to be a 'good' site, whatever 'good' is (I also work in the Harry Potter articles, and the criteria there is that, for a site to be 'good', it must be endorsed by the author. For obvious reasons, Edward II can't endorse a website, but anything produced by/recommended by a reputable historian would seem a good idea - if there is such a thing). Just my views... Michaelsanders 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my blog that you removed. It doesn't say anything about a 'beloved monarch'; the 'slogan' is "an attempt to salvage the reputation of one of England's most maligned kings". My aim is to provide a more balanced and sympathetic view of Edward, while remaining as objective as possible. I have a BA and an MA with Distinction in medieval history. I'm wondering what qualifications people posting here have for writing about Edward II? AlianoreD 11:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put the link back in and we'll see how it lasts ... In fairness to those who removed it, Wikipedia's general guidelines deprecate links to blogs; but they also say that rules are made to be broken, and I think that in this case the link is really useful. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above when discussing the removal of the link, I said it seemed good. But the point remains, it is written as a blog. It is not user accessible (a reader can't easily look up a subject, merely has to trawl through the archived dates), it does not source its information particularly well, and the basis of writing according to immediate interest means that it jumps erratically from different subjects - from Edward's marriage to his deposition to the marriages of Margaret de Clare. It is a blog, temporary. Is there no way that you can make a proper website? Michaelsanders 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

'Erratic'? That's your opinion. I prefer to think of it as 'eclectic'. Everything in it is 'about' Edward II, his reign, his life, his family, in some way. It's intended to be both informative and entertaining. If you don't enjoy it, fine. But if you check the sidebar, you'll see that (most of) the posts are categorised to facilitate user access. Sources: I haven't figured out a way of adding them while keeping the interface readable and user-friendly. I don't want to add 'source: Vita Edwardi Secundi' or 'source: Annales Paulini' or whatever after every sentence. If any readers want to find out the original source, they're welcome to ask me in the comments. In fact, a lot of my posts quote directly from primary sources. And considering the Wiki article only references one primary source, one article of less than a page, and three books - and one or two more in the text not mentioned in the 'References' - I hardly think you're in a position to criticise. Where are the references to Haines, Dodd and Musson, Maddicott, Phillips, Johnstone? What about Edward II's Chamber and Wardrobe Accounts, Household Books, Patent/Close/Fine/etc Rolls, IPMs, other contemporary or near-contemporary chroniclers, etc etc? Why is Ian Mortimer's 'Greatest Traitor' quoted in the text but not mentioned in the 'References'? Why has his quote about the younger Despenser (the minister and bully one) been copied in the text without citation? By the way, I have no idea how to set up a website. AlianoreD 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More on life and death

Alison Weir (2005)in Isabella, She Wolf of France; Queen of England, makes a persuasive argument that Edward survived an attempt on his life on 21 September 1327 by adherents of Roger Mortimer and subsequently fled to Italy via Corfe and the continent. She argues that Edward's custodians covered up his escape with a substituted body to avoid the consequences of their own incompetence. She cites several sources as evidence for this argument including the Fieschi letter, which she also quotes in full and analyses in the context of other evidence.

The Fieschi letter has never been discredited,although there are some inconsistencies and errors in it. None of these undermine its authenticity however. Fieschi himself was a clergyman, a distant relative of Edward II,and a friend of Edward III's tutor, who had lived in England and who had met Edward II. He was therefore sure to have recognised the King when he saw him in Italy. Weir estimates that given the length of time it would have taken for Edward to travel to Italy as an individual without the benefit of his position, and the length of time the letter says Edward spent in the hermitages in Italy, then it is likely that Edward II died c.1337 (although the margin of error is quite high). The Fieschi letter should certainly be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, since it is germane to any discussion of Edward II's life and death.

21 September 1327 is commonly cited as the date of Edward's death/escape because Isabella was 130 miles away from Berkeley, where Edward was held, when she was informed of his death during the night of 23 September (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, Public Record Office; Haines: Edwardus Redividus). This is about how long it would have taken a messenger to travel from Berkeley to Lincoln, where the Queen was staying. One source (the Berkeley accounts) says that a messenger arrived in Lincoln on 28 September. This is likely to be an error and should be 23 September, but it is enough to raise a question mark about the date of Edward II's death/escape.

Edward's postulated homosexuality is relevant in that it partially explains his close associations with Gaveston and le Despenser at the expense of his wife and the English magnates and the trouble those relationships subsquently brought down on his head. The life and death of Edward II is important for the precedents it established in British law and government, not for its spurious effects on the sexual politics of the 21st century.

The death by red hot poker is an obvious fiction since it would cause so much pain that the victim would be screaming for days, before succumbing to shock and peritonitis. Hardly, therefore, a method of assassination that would be chosen by conspirators trying to discreetly get rid of a deposed king. Nor is it consistent with the considerate treatment Edward received while he was a prisoner. Moreover, as previous correspondents have noted on this page, there are no contemporary sources that support this story. Some reasonably contemporary sources assert that he was either suffocated or poisoned (much more plausible). R0byn8 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy/Continuity Issues and Writing

The wiki article on Edward I has a more complete (and probably more balanced) version of his death than that dealt with here. Stories given here are discounted as improbable in the Edward I page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.46.52 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Edward II wiki article, the writer states that Edward I selected Piers Gaveston as an companion to his son in 1298. However, in the Piers Gaveston wikipedia article, the date is cited as 1300. Does anyone have information on the actual date, or is their an academic debate regarding the date?

Article also freqently uses the stock phrase "some people" when discussing controversial items such as Edward's homosexuality (I think we also need to use care in seperating homosexuality from homosexual behavior, so as not to project contemporary readings onto Edward's sexual behavior). It would be beneficial to have some idea of who "some people" are and what their claims are.

I'm going to clean up the article for general awkward sentence structure, poor punctuation and excessive clausation. --Madnessandcivilization 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When will this madness end? No matter how much followers of social constructionism try to skirt around the issue, it is ultimately impossible to deny that homosexual behaviour indicates the presence of homosexual desire. What is "projecting a contemporary reading" anyway? That is such typical constructivist lingo. If someone had actually suggested that Edward II was "an early pioneer of Gay Liberation" then I would understand the criticism, but it is hardly unreasonable to say that a person who engages in homosexual relationships is homosexual, as that is what his behaviour shows him to be. Oh, and don't tell me that "the gay identity had not yet been constructed." Gay identity is more a man made of straw and shot down by social consructionists themselves than anything that actually exists in the real world outside social constructionism. It is not necessary for a person now living to internalise a specific gay identity before he can actually feel homosexual desire, and it was clearly not necessary in Edward's time. --Ilmateur (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

sORRY TO INTERUPT AGAIN ! But there are two things people must get clear about these matters.Please understand that intense emotional even physically affectionate relationships between men do not indicate homosexuality in the modern sense.Until less than a hundred years ago, women were regarded as children and many men found it impossible to have the deep total mental relationship with them that they had with men.There has for example been talk about Abraham Lincoln sharing his bed with a male friend..This is an example of this.It has nothing to do with any feelings of homosexual desire except in the widest sense which is that males are tribal pack animals who hunt and fight together and who therefore need to have emotional feelings that drive them to help and come to the aid of other men.Homosexual desire in the modern sense has no part in this although it may be found at the extreme end of what is a very very long homosexual continuum SECOND May I again remind readers that all these events in England or Scotland etc took place in an area..the British Isles that was entirely ruled and run by people we would consider Frenchmen.Their language education and culture was entirely French.If you had said to William the Conqueror that he was now the proud king of England,you would have insulted him.Call me by my rightful title he would said The Duke of Burgundy!! The endless references to England and the English King etc confuse the reality that we are talking about French men who were jostling for power among themselves.It is probably true that Wallace and Bruce who both would have considered themselves Frenchmen irrespective of where they were born, cleverly realised that they could use the fighting energy of the Scots tribes to defeat their French Norman brother armies in the North of England liberate the Norman hating English and slowly,move south with the aim of taking power over all England .It would of course still have been French speaking Norman power Writing always about the Scots and English gives a totally absurd and false picture of the situation.The same trick is played in Ireland where many people actually believe that the English invaded Ireland in 1179!! In fact of course it was a French speaking French Norman army led by the French born and educated French speaking King of England(!!") Henry II ,acting incidentally by the orders of the Pope ..to reintroduce Catholicism into Ireland !!

Analysis of the Fieschi Letter and Events at Berkeley Castle ==

The Fieschi Letter, written by Manuel Fieschi around 1340. It was discovered in the department of archives at Montpellier in a cartulary, compiled in 1368, of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne , treasurer of Pope Urban V . It was first published in 1878 by Alexandre Germain. The letter was written by Manuel Fieschi and address to the son of Edward II , Edward III . The source of this information is the Doherty book cited below.

S Historians generally agree Edward II was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327, although the method of death is unclear. The Fieschi Letter claims Edward II escaped from Berkeley Castle and was not murdered at all. The letter claimed Edward II traveled to Ireland, across Europe, and finally became a monk in an Italian monastery after his escape. Fieschi, who had met Edward II and would have known him on sight, claimed to have personally spoken to the deposed and supposedly dead King, and heard his confession. The Fieschi Letter does not say Edward II was dead at the time it was written, so one can assume Fieschi was claiming Edward II was still alive as of the date he was writing the letter, 13 years after Edward II was said to have been murdered.

There is a fascinating, entertaining, and comprehensive analysis of the Fieschi Letter, in Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003) by Paul Doherty . Mr. Doherty also sets out in detail other curious events surrounding the murder of Edward II , and the pursuit and prosecution of those involved in his murder. Mr. Doherty has studied history at Liverpool and Oxford universities. He earned a PhD in history from Oxford.

Mr. Doherty places the letter in the relevant historical context. He talks at length and in detail about Manuel Fieschi, his relationship with the English royal family, and his service to the Vatican. He provides an analysis of which parts of the letter indicate Fieschi had accurate inside knowledge of the ultimate fate of Edward II , and which parts of the letter show gaps or errors in Fieschi's knowledge of facts which are, and were at the time, historically verifiable. He also provides information about what points of the letter the person the letter was addressed to, Edward III , would have known were incorrect.

In addition:

The accepted historical record states the highly mobile, organized, and well resourced Dunheved Gang learned where Edward II was imprisoned in July 1327. They hatched a plot to free him. The gang caused a riot in Cirencester, disappeared, and then turned up in Chester. Then the government issued writs against the Dunheved Gang for avoiding military service in Scotland. On 1 August 1327, Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle and responsible the custody of Edward II , was given special powers to hunt down and bring the gang to trial.

The accepted historical record states the Dunheved Gang made a raid on Berkeley Castle some time during July 1327, and may have freed Edward II temporarily. Historians have stated Edward II was either immediately returned to Berkeley Castle , or was never freed and moved around to other castles during July and August 1327. Historians agree Edward II was back at Berkeley Castle by the beginning of September 1327. Historians generally agree Edward II was not at Berkeley Castle during the interval between mid-July 1327 and 1 September 1327. A possible explanation for this confusion among historians were gaps in the recordkeeping and bills submitted by Thomas Berkeley to the government for reimbursement for Edward II's keep during his imprisonment at Berkeley Castle, which were not submitted until long after Edward II's historically accepted date of death. The generally accepted historical fact states the Dunheved Gang were, ultimately, never able to free Edward II , and he was murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327.

Mr. Doherty also emphasizes in his book the letter of John Walwayn, printed in the Ancient Correspondence in the Public Records Office, and published by the historian Tanquerery. John Walwayn , a royal clerk, was sent to Berkeley Castle to investigate the Dunheved raid of July 1327. He was a royal clerk, so one would presume he was sent by, or under the authority of, Queen Isabella and/or Roger Mortimer, who were running the government at the time. Walwayn's panicked letter regarding the raid makes it obvious something was seriously awry at Berkeley Castle in July 1327, and clearly states Edward II was indeed freed from his imprisonment by the Dunheved Gang during the July 1327 raid. This, and other curious events regarding the pursuit and prosecution, or lack thereof, of Edward II's murderers and others involved in the events at Berkeley Castle during the period of July to September 1327 are detailed in Mr. Doherty's book.

Mr. Doherty's conclusion is Edward II was not murdered and was indeed freed by the Dunheved Gang from Berkeley Castle on or about 19 July 1327. Mr. Doherty makes the case that Edward II survived at least 13 years after the date historians believe he was murdered, which was the approximate timing of the Fieschi Letter. The book makes a pretty compelling case, in my opinion.

He concludes the Fieschi Letter was nothing more than clever and subtle means of blackmail to encourage Edward III to resist pressure to divest Manuel Fieschi of offices and lands he then held under the authority of the English Catholic Church. Fieschi received monetary benefits from being a foreign absentee office holder and landlord. Many in England resented foreigners who received monetary benefit from the English Catholic Church in return for little or no work. There was pressure brought to bear upon Edward III at the time the Fieschi Letter was written to revoke these types of privileges for all foreign absentee beneficiaries. Edward III did revoke the rights of many foreign absentee office holders and landlords due to this pressure. Manuel Fieschi, however, not only did not lose any of his offices or lands, but was awarded additional offices and lands by Edward III thereafter and financially prospered. If the letter was meant as blackmail, it worked beautifully.

Why would Edward III not want anyone to know his father had not been murdered at Berkeley Castle on 21 September 1327? (Items 2 and 3 might be a tad inexact as I can't currently locate my source book. If there are any errors I will correct them once I have done additional research and/or located the book.)

1. It could result in a threat someone might try to reinstate Edward II . Edward II was the first British Monarch who had ever been deposed. He was actually pressured to abdicate in favor of his son under threat of being deposed, if one wishes to split legal hairs. If he had not abdicated, the Plantagenet succession was threatened. He abdicated to insure his son would inherit the throne instead of one "not of royal blood, but experienced in governance," which is believed to be a thinly veiled threat to put Roger Mortimer , his wife's lover and architect of his downfall, on the throne. At that time there was no historical precedent for this action. Edward II was not without supporters like the Dunheved Gang, especially in Wales. This would be a very sticky situation for Edward III and raise potentially embarrassing questions about Edward III's actions, or lack thereof, before and after his father's murder.

Historical aside, Diana, Princess of Wales , formerly Lady Diana Spencer, is a direct descendant of the hated Hugh Despenser the Younger , who was selected by BBC History Magazine as the 14th century's worst Briton, and viewed as largely responsible for the downfall of Edward II . It is ironic that Prince William of Wales may someday inherit the same throne Edward II sat upon, given the fact Prince William's ancestor is viewed as being one of the prime motivations for causing the first British Monarch in history to be forcibly removed from said throne by force of law.

The cite for this is Sir Winston's son, Randolph Churchill , who authored his the first two volumes of his father's biography. The claim is made in Volume I of the biography (Youth 1874-1900 Ch. 1 P. 9).

Sir Winston Churchill and Princess Diana share a common ancestor, Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (1683-1716) , who Randolph Churchill claims is descended from Hugh Despenser the Younger . Having researched this issue myself, I can see how this claim would be controversial among historians. The direct ancestral link from Diana, Princess of Wales to Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (1683-1716) is real and very well historically documented. However, Anne Spencer's ancestral line can only be directly traced back to Sir John Spencer, born before 1490, died 14 April 1522. No one seems to be positive who Sir John Spencer's parents were. The claim that Sir John Spencer was a direct descendant of Hugh Despenser the Younger is based largely upon the assertions of Randolph Churchill in his father's biography. Seeing that Anne Spencer was also a direct ancestor of the Churchill family, it is possible there is some document in the Churchill family archives which supports his claim. I don't know what Randolph cites as the basis for this ancestral connection. I guess it's time to pop down to the library to check it out. See http://www.thepeerage.com/p10537.htm#i105367 for info on Sir John Spencer. (Go on! Trace his descendants just like I did! Fun for the whole fandamily!) See http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=763 for the 411 on the Churchill ancestry. Randolph Churchill's Wikipedia page also claims poor Randolph had a serious drinking problem. *sigh*

2. If this issue were raised again in public, Edward III would not be eager to explain why he had not protected his father before his death if Edward II was indeed murdered. He would also not be eager to explain how a fake corpse had been passed off as his father's if it could be proven Edward II was still alive. Why was the dead King embalmed by a local old woman instead of a royal physician? Why was the body held so long before it was transported for entombment in Gloucester Cathedral? Why was no one, except the conspirators, allowed a close look at the body until long after the King had died? Why do contemporary historical accounts seem to indicate only a cursory and superficial viewing of the dead King's shrouded corpse when it was finally made available for viewing?

3. There is also the thorny issue of Edward III's strange and inconsistent pursuit and prosecution of those thought to have been responsible for Edward II's murder. Some were exonerated despite comically incredible testimony. Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle and responsible the custody of Edward II was found innocent despite giving testimony that conflicted with written historical documents. His testimony could have easily been proven false if Edward II had been murdered at his castle, and his culpability established if he was present in the castle at the time. (Which written records say he was, but he claims he was ill and recovering at one of his other estates.) He even said in his testimony that he had not known until the day of his testimony that Edward II was dead! (Could this mean Thomas was cleverly baiting the court because he knew Edward II was still alive? Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose kind of defense.) Roger Mortimer's statement upon the gallows did not mention Queen Isabella or the death of Edward II . Roger Mortimer's title was reinstated to his grandson by Edward III . That grandson, Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March even served as a member of Edward III's royal council, which is hardly a case for lingering bitter feelings toward the Mortimer family despite all that had transpired.

4. After his father's death, Edward III went to great lengths to protect and rehabilitate the reputation of his mother, Queen Isabella . Anyone who could provide credible evidence Edward II was alive would cause embarrassment for the royal family. Difficult questions would be raised and the whole issue would again be dragged into public view. Even if the claim could be proven false, Queen Isabella's actions before and after the time of her husband's death would once more be called into public question. Queen Isabella's adulterous affair with Roger Mortimer would once again become grist for the common gossip mill.

One of the curious actions taken by the government when it was under the control of Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella was the issuance of writs against the Dunheved Gang. Between the July 1327 Dunheved Gang raid, and 1 August 1327, when Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley Castle was given special powers by the government to hunt down and bring the Dunheved Gang to trial, the government only issued writs against the Dunheved Gang for avoiding military service in Scotland.

It was widespread knowledge at the time the Dunheved Gang was avoiding military service in Scotland expressly for the purpose of locating and freeing Edward II . Why were they not charged with more serious crimes by Mortimer and Isabella’s government? Treason, perhaps? Maybe Mortimer and Isabella had more pressing reasons not to call attention to the true motive of the Dunheved Gang in public government writ, such as Edward II had already been freed by the Dunheved Gang and was wandering about the countryside, whereabouts unknown.

It all makes for absolutely fascinating reading, even if other historians and fellow Wikipedians believe it is a load of historical bunk.

--Jsternsp 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Charles?

The article mentions a certain "Charles": "On 31 May 1325, Isabella agreed to a Peace Treaty. It favoured France and required the King to pay homage, in France to Charles. But Edward decided instead to send his son who would pay homage to Charles." Am I right to assume this is [Charles IV of France], Isabella's brother? If so, this should be mentioned explicitly in the article.

Top.Squark 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Lovingnews1989 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Why is the picture at the very top left hand side of this page the same as the Edward I page? shouldnt there be diferent pictures?

Adam FitzRoy

Apparently there is a mistake either here or in the article on Adam FitzRoy: This article says: "Edward had also fathered at least one illegitimate son, Adam FitzRoy, who accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1312 and died on 18 September 1322." The article on Adam FitzRoy says: "He accompanied his father in the Scottish campaigns of 1322, and died shortly afterwards on September 18, 1322." Which Scottish campaigns are the right ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.182.222 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1322 is the correct date. I've changed it in the article. AlianoreD (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Innumerate Ancestry

As current, listed percentages add up to 107.71.186.172.82 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from that, what's the use of this statistics? This person was not a dog of mixed parentage like half bulldog and half Golden Retriever etc. The nonsense of this becomes clear when one would try and ask what his "English" heritage really was. Anglo-saxon? Saxon? Maybe Roman? Viking? --Bernardoni (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward & Piers

I have waited a few days, trying to let this sink into my (rather slow) mind and with the desire not to be stupid or rude, but i can't help but think that this revision by Contaldo80 is going too far. Though it is a long time since i have read or seen Marlowe's play, i don't think Edward's homosexuality (if it existed) is made explicit in it; in many, or most, modern productions, perhaps, i agree, but that's not what we have here. And, of course, we have to remember, that even if Marlowe showed penetrative homosexual intercourse on stage his play is merely fiction, not an historical study which we can use as evidence.

I have to say that i also have a question about the edit summary left: "[D]on't want to lose the clear homosexual element to this somewhere in the section". While i always AGF that begins to sound like leaning towards a POV in an edit. In an earlier part of the same section on Edward & Piers, also added i think by Contaldo80, we state that the evidence "does not, however, prove that Edward and Gaveston were lovers".

For these reasons i have revised the edit. Comments? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My reasoning really is that Edward is seen by many in the modern LGBT community and more widely as being a 'gay' king. Now I accept that the evidence is not clear cut - it's always pretty difficult to pin down the nature of personal relationships - but what evidence exists is pretty good and does at least point to the strong possibility that Edward was homosexual. My concern is that one could read the whole article and yet nowhere make the link that we are talking about homosexuality - it's currently all a bit euphemisitic. I think we can afford to be a bit more explicit. Happy to make clear that the jury is out, but would like to see something that at least clarifies what the issue actually is. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Without trying to argue, i'm not sure that "euphemisitic" is the word we want; perhaps there is no explicit talk of homosexuality because there is no explicit evidence of it? Regardless, and also regardless of whether or not we want to pander to one modern community or another in validating their view of a historical figure, i can actually accept the version we've got at the moment ~ with the proviso that i really must get ahold of this soon and reread it. And if this discussion prompts that, then it's been a Good Thing. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 08:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth reminding ourselves of the wiki definition of "homosexuality" - it refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex". Edward's relationship with Gaveston and later Depenser could quite credibly be seen as at least a romantic attraction; possibly sexual attraction (alongside the complete failure of a mrriage with Isabella).

I think the argument in favour of explicit evidence is a red-herring, as we do not need to look for a record of actual sexual activity between the two; but rather a unique bond. We also need to contextualise the historical position. Homosexual or bisexual men at this time would not have been in a position to be explicit in their attraction and behaviour (even a king). The penalty was (and remained) death. Historically homosexuality is therefore 'invisible' - perhaps only glimpsed when individuals were sent on their way to the stake.

I think we need to content ourselves with a balanced analysis of what contemporaries said and how this is interpreted by modern scholars. I agree that no defintive answer can ever be reached, but nevertheless feel the issue should be sensibly covered. I find the suggestion that this is 'pandering' slightly offensive, but I shall let that pass. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. By no means did i intend to be offensive. I hope i was just responding to your comment that one community sees this character in a particular way; i don't want to cater (is that better than pander?) to that community or any other in our presentation of him any more than i would give special emphasis to presenting the Welsh view of his father. Certainly the views belong in the articles, though. On an upbeat note, i think that "a balanced analysis of what contemporaries said and how this is interpreted by modern scholars" is currently present, don't you? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I do. And very grateful for your efforts to be understanding. Regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"It should be noted....this gruesome account is uncorroborated..."

CHALLENGED: I challenge this material, as unverified for lack of citing a reliable source --please see my consecutive edits to view the exact narrative, by the ' 'diffs' '. This claim is spurious because there is no demonstrated connection to any basis in fact --ie, to the reliable historical record. I appeal to any wiki editor who can provide a ' 'detailed and verifiable' ' source (for this claimed method of killing Edward II) to do so now.--Jbeans (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote was attributed shortly after you tagged the first time, it now has, following the second tagging after that, a link to a book viewable online via googlebooks containing the quote. If anyone google searched for the first line this book is one of the results that comes up. I am very surprised you were unable to verify the quote using a simple search.--Alf ^melmac 11:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alf, I'm also surprised, on two counts:

1. I expect a Wikipedia Administrator to accept seriously the requirement to furnish definitive-data-of-record that corrects the problem of unsupported narrative for historical claims —ie, if he/she volunteers to argue the narrative is 'True'. It's not ok to casually shift the burden to the one who challenges the unsupported material. (FYI, though I looked at the link you offered, I pursued "no attempt to verify the quote", because I challenge the unsupported historical claim of the narrative, ie, the 'quote' —as 'Not True'. And, lest you think I mistook your meaning, Alf —your link certainly does not verify the claim). If, OTOH, you believe the claim 'True' (ie, that a hot-poker-driven-up-the-anus was 'true' history re the fate of Edward II), then you are obliged to do the hard work to authenticate the source for the claim. This, you have not done, your responses thus far notwthstanding.

2. Alf, I am surprised too, at the faith you seem to posit in Sir Thomas de la Moore as a verifiable and reliable source —as though his 'writing' here has been authenicated by historians/scholars. The opposite appears to be the case: anyone reading the scholars' reviews of de la Moore will note they assessed him, not a writer (see Geoffrey the Baker); and they (ie, Stubbs and Thompson) adjudged he was credited for stuff actually written by his paid scribe (ie, Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, or, Geoffrey the Baker). IMO —regardless of the author-status of either de la Moore or Geoffrey the Baker— you, Alf, have not provided analyses (by historian/scholars) that speak to the verisimilitude of the hot-poker yarn.

(Alf, I am re-posting the tags; and asking you to find historical documentation to support the mayhem claimed by the narrative —if you can. Wikipedia, for its credibility, should not report a political yarn —no matter how venerable and deliciously salacious— as 'True', just because somebody —a long time ago— wrote it down and said it was so. Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, et al, do that for a living any day of the week; it's called 'truthiness'!)--Jbeans (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You wish this quote to do more than we would normally expect then. You tagged the quote as fact, this quote has now been attributed. Whether or not it is the truth in any sense is not up to any Wikipedia editor to say. If you are able to find scholarly comment on Moore's words, you are free to add. If you wish to alter the layout please do so if you think that will help the reader understand that it is a quote by the given author, if you wish to add a "...Moore say..." you welcome to. You can tag whatever you like, I see no need to go further with this.--Alf ^melmac 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this the citation for de la Moore needed for the text? "Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Vol. 2 Commendatio lamentabilis in transitu magni regis Edwardi, 1 Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvan auctore Canonico Bridlingtoniensi, 2 Monachi cujusdam Malmesberiensis vita Edward II, 3 Vita et mors Edward II. Conscripta a Thoma de la Moore, 4 By William STUBBS, of Bridlington JOHN. Published by , 1883"

Isn't it a case of simply rephrasing the text to make clear that we do not know exactly how Edward died? One account is obviously that of the contemporary, de la Moore. This is helpful as it is the source of later "popular" accounts of the death - including that set out by Marlowe in his play. We should of course make clear that he was only a minor official, not witness to the death, and that other sources suggest a different death. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that no one really knows for sure how Edward II died, I don't think re-phrasing will help, attributing to the original source instread of via an online book would be good though. I think Jbean's need for the cite is above and beyond what a cite is expected to do.--Alf ^melmac 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the bracketed mention of Thomas Moore, the line now again reads "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source and no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II" I have moved the fact tag to the end of that as I 'challenge' the fact that "no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened" - if scholars do say that then we can reference them. The section needs re-writing as we jump ahead in the mention of rumours of copper pipe (where I've added a 'who?' tag) ahead of the chronicler who appears to have introduced it in the 1330s. The Thomas Moore quote should be put into that section maybe?--Alf ^melmac 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== Edward II and Gaveston

Re the claim that 'Edward declared that he loved Gaveston more than life itself': The contemporary chronicle you seem to be referring to says that "when the King's son saw him [Gaveston] he fell so much in love that he entered upon an enduring compact with him." NOT that 'Edward loved Gaveston more than life itself'! He wasn't a bad romance novelist! Joanne2009 (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing 'Death'; reporting the mystery:

I have rewritten the section (previously) titled 'Death' —to improve this article by reporting the rigorous and definitive reseach of Dr Ian Mortimer, a scholar and professional historian who is currently very active in this field; he has recently published authoritative analyses and convincing argument that: >>> in 1327, in merry olde England, Edward II did not die, was not murdered, nor assassinated; and he was not even tortured to death —'compleate' with great horrific dollops of pornoviolent drama for titillating 14th- and 21st-century audiences<<< (BTW: not Dr M's words!).

Instead, Mortimer argues, the evidence shows that Edward was seen in England and known to be alive in and after the year 1330; that he survived and escaped the confines of Berkeley Castle and England itself, apparently to find near-anonymous exile in western Europe until his eventual death in northern Italy. (Mortimer's essay, "A note on the deaths of Edward II", is linked in the article.)

My narrative is sourced almost entirely on Mortimer's lengthy essay, and is essentially a selective reporting of the same. I urge every person interested in (contentious) history issues to read Dr Mortimer's "..deaths of Edward II", in its entirety, to appreciate the scholarship and rigorous methods involved with professional historical research.

As a convenience for tracking to Mortimer's essay, I posted the new narrative twice. First time: several main points are 'marked' with a cross-reference, e.g.[REF para 99] to the essay; then the second, official posting, loses the 'marks'. (By clicking the "prev" option (history page) on the second posting, the reader can display the cross-reference 'marks' in 'stand-out' red, for easy reading.)--Jbeans (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)/re corrections:--Jbeans (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I was going to revert your edits to the article, because you indicated a request to a nonexistent discussion '(pls see discussion)'; now that you've started the discussion i'll wait a little while. I have to say, however, that i think that far too much space is now given to the question of whether or not he died. Certainly it is an interesting question; it's not the most interesting thing about Edward, though, so giving it, by my rough estimate (screenfuls of type), about a quarter of the whole article is clearly too much. I suggest we cut it down rather a lot, to a couple of sentences, summarising the contentions that Mortimer makes. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a topic that many people find interesting -- I wonder whether it might not be worth spinning off a separate article devoted to the Controversy concerning the death of Edward II. Note too that Thomas Costain's "The Three Edwards", published in 1962, contains a pretty extensive account of the theory that Mortimer is supporting, and P. C. Doherty's more recent book "Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II" also discusses it at some length. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support that solution as better than filling this article just with the controversy. Good suggestion, Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alison Weir also looks at the survival question in "Isabella". Personally, I am still not convinced by the arguments, a deposed King would be too powerful to leave alive. However, it is a fascinating possibility and I agree that a separate article is a good idea.Robruss24 (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I request we wait a while and see if others have a problem with the length of the new section. Meanwhile, I'd be keen to learn if anyone has a problem with the quality of the words, i.e.; with the content/argument of the source document published by Ian Mortimer: 'Note on the deaths of Edward II' (Talk about lengthy! it's a long essay —my section narrative is but a condensed derivative of it— but, his thorough approach, and rigorous logic, is necessary to discover and document the credible evidence he has revealed.)--Jbeans (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have a problem more with the tone of the new section than with the length. (But I also think it's too long.) It seems unduly laudatory of Ian Mortimer and not at all NPOV. Mortimer's work (as cited) is less than a decade old, and phrasing like "authoritative analysis" and "definitive evidence," as well as the repeated emphasis that Mortimer is a historian, really seems unwarranted. Since this article is about Edward II and not Ian Mortimer, we should leave the focus there. If Mortimer has convinced other historians of this era (and nothing said here shows that), then there's no need to say so much about how good a job Mortimer did in proving his case. Just say that recent evidence has demonstrated that the long-held beliefs are incorrect and correct them. Point to Mortimer's article by all means, but don't talk about him so much. If Mortimer hasn't convinced other historians, then the current state of the debate should be summarized concisely and any detailed consideration of the argument shunted to a different article. Tsength (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tsength, thank you for your response. I would like to reply to two facts-at-issue you raised, to wit: (You said): (1). "...the repeated emphasis that Mortimer is a historian... seems unwarranted"; and, (2). "...there's no need to say so much about how good a job Mortimer did...", and, "...don't talk about him so much." (My italics/emphasis).

(First, for the record, I do not know Ian Mortimer --have never met the man, nor heard of him prior to being referred to his Wikipedia page, by a fellow editor here. That bio-read, plus now having reading three of his books and peer-reviewed papers, is all that I know of the man).

Re (1). (My reply)>> I readily use "historian" as a title when it applies, which is not unreasonable, nor uncommonly done by others --'historian' is Ian Mortimer's career occupation and happens to be the word identifying his Wikipedia article page. Other titles used, or available, are Professor, Prof, or Dr --or none at all, when there is no confusion.

I may have used "historian" here more times than seems necessary, but my particular concern was: each time the name "Mortimer" occurred the reader would be clearly noticed that the person referred to was either "Roger Mortimer" or "Ian Mortimer" (i.e., 'historian' Mortimer) --i.e., that there would be little chance of confusing the two names in the narrative. Question for you, Tsength: (Ian Mortimer is in fact a credentialed and professional historian and scholar, (source: Wikipedia), who is actively practicing his profession: research and analysis of historical themes and issues.) What problems are caused by using the title "historian" when referring to him?

Re (2). (My reply)>> I did not write multiple phrases saying "how good a job Mortimer did"; but I do stipulate --and here I suspect is the source of our differing views-- that the substance (i.e., the results) in the man's essay --"A note on the deaths of Edward II"-- is praiseworthy, and is very fitting for Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. And, it is critical to note here, it is the essay --not the person-- that is referred to several times in the narrative --because the purpose of the (new) section narrative is to report the results of research done (and documented in the essay) re the longstanding question of Edward's fate.

>>Nor did I write narrative that ...talks "about him so much" --beyond the introductory line, which says: the recent research "...of professional historian and scholar Dr. Ian Mortimer...". Tsength, if you please; reply and recap all the specific phrases "about him" that add up to "so much". Meanwhile, I will review, in light of your concern with the current phrasing, and see if I can clarify that it's the essay, not the author, that I am referring to in the narrative. --Jbeans (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Extensive editing of this section, largely devoted to increasing the profile of: "A Note on the Deaths of Edward II" (2008) —i.e., the essay, its name, and its role as a reference here; especially to highlight the essay's key role in reporting a credible historical analysis of the fate of Edward II and the mystery still surrounding his actual death; and to distinguish it from Dr Mortimer's other works that deal with, or touch on, the same subject. >>>And, once started, more copy-editing to improve word flow, etc.--Jbeans (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WHY is this section full of eye-bleeding italics that make the thing look like the writing of an over-wrought school girl? While Mortimer's book is an interesting discussion of the subject, there still remain some serious questions in my mind that make me at least mildly skeptical: that no one ever gave away making effigies to fake the display of his body, that no one ever gave away guarding him for all those years, that they were willing to allow someone as potentially deadly as Edward II to live. That doesn't mean that Mortimer isn't right, but I would love to see this re-written so that it doesn't look like someone gushing over their favorite historian.

I'm not willing to do the reading (my interest mainly lies elsewhere) to see how other historians have reacted, but I sincerely wish someone more knowledgeable would bring some balance to this section.

JScotia (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You say not 'authenticated' —I say not 'authenticatable'

The 5 May edit provides a different word, 'authenticate', (a verb), for 'authenticatable', (an adjective; source: dictionary.com); both words are correct here —though with different meanings; I accept the change which may resonate with more readers. Still, I am concerned to ensure the reader 'gets' the "however" proviso which follows: that all those other stories —including the infamous 'hot poker' yarn— were carefully documented by Mortimer and found to be, (all of 'em), >>sourced to the Lord Berkeley report —which (report) Mortimer confirmed— but which (report) also in fact conveyed a fictitious message: that the old king was dead —which was a lie; and the funereal ruse was on! —which (lie) Mortimer revealed. Hence, all, and each-of, those other stories cannot be authenticated; and hence the edits just made here.--Jbeans (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag for Undue Weight

I have flagged the section on Edwards death for its POV... The article gives WP:Undue weight to disussing Ian Mortimer's theories on when Edward Died. I am not saying that we should not mention it... but it should be no more than a sentence or two. First, we should give primacy of both place and space to the views held by the majority of historians... second should come minority views that have been published in peer reviewed academic journals .. third should come alternative views published in books for the general public ... and last should come self-published examinations and musings by historians on their personal websites (which is where Mortimer has published his theories). The amount of space devoted to Mortimer's somewhat fringe theory needs to be cut WAY back. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried that wikipedia is being used merely as a tool to further Ian Mortimer's career. Sure he might have uncovered some new research but we shouldn't assume that it's definitive in any way. I'd be interested first in seeing what other historians have said about this. If this is a proper academic debate then there will be those that support and argue against Mortimer's conclusions. Until we have a bit more of this then I suggest we pare back this highly contorversial material to a minimum. Otherwise I fear we have the tone of this article all wrong. Nor is there any mention of the red hot poker. I accept this may not have happened but most people who have heard about Edward II have heard about the red hot poker. We need to have a line on it even if it's to say that the story is fiction. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job finding and returning the earier version... much better (I have removed the POV tag). However, the section needs some sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On another matter regarding Edward's death, unless I missed it somehow. Whereas the article has a lot a ambiguity concerning his death, there is even more ambiguity concerning how his remains ended up in the sarcophagus at Gloucester Cathedral. It might be helpful to explain this. Are his remains in the tomb? Or is this actually a cenotaph? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Death

We don't know for certain that Edward II died at Berkley Castle so the instroduction should say his "supposed death". (JerryAtkinson (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

The sentence reads as it stands: "In addition to these disasters, Edward II is remembered for his supposed death in Berkeley Castle, allegedly by murder..." This makes little sense. The point is that Edward is popularly remembered because people thought he was actually murdered at Berkeley Castle. He isn't popularly remembered because people think he escaped and died in Italy or elsewhere. I propose we change "supposedly" to "likely" - as this is indeed the likeliest course of events; although I accept that others have presented theories that suggest death elsewhere. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, the subheading "Death" says he was murdered on October 11, but in the upper right of the article, under his picture, it says September 21. Which is correct? Esaons (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC Categorization of Edward II's death date

Edward II's death date remains uncorroborated and the arguments for different dates are summarized in a specific section in this article. The article is categorized in 1327 deaths, is this appropriate as the year the majority of sources mention or should it be changed to a less specific date category (such as Category:14th-century deaths) as there is no unequivocal evidence for such a precise figure? Fæ (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this needs an RfC - wouldn't it have been better to be bold and change? Isn't there a Category:1320s deaths which would be safe enough? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was taking into account the 5 year history of discussion about the death date on this talk page and previous bold attempts to change this category which have been reverted. This RfC is an attempt to unequivocally put the matter to rest in a way that Edward was not. As 1330 is an alternate date quoted in the article, I'm afraid that changing to 1320s deaths may not be sufficient. Fæ (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Use Category:14th-century deaths, because there doesn't even exist a consensus about the decade of his birth.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that most historians would agree he died in the 1320s. It's only really Mortimer who disagrees. It's true we can't say with certainty the exact date of death but he was buried in December 1327. While there will always be conspiracy theories - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Michael Prestwich (in his Plantagenet England pp. 219-220), the Handbook of British Chronology (p. 39 where they give the death date as 21 Sept 1327), W. M. Ormod (in The Reign of Edward III p. 49), and Seymour Phillips (who also agrees with the date of 21 Sept and discusses the entire events at length in his new Edward II), all concur with 1327. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that nearly every historian thinks Edward II died in 1327. His son certainly acted on that presumption when he accepted his father's crown. We should follow the reliable sources, where there seems to be a consensus on that year. --Coemgenus 23:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If nearly every historian thinks he died in 1327 but there is a significant dissenter, I would prefer a broader category - which is consistent with all sources - rather than a 1327 category - which is merely consistent with most but not all sources. If you want to contrast the realtive merits of different historians' claims then the text of this article is a good place to do it, but the categorisation is not. bobrayner (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Use Category:14th-century deaths, because there is disageement among reputable, currently practicing historians that there is sufficient physical evidence—especially archival records—of when, how, or where Edward II died.--Jbeans (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Widely rumoured to have been either homosexual or bisexual"

I see that there has already been extensive discussion of the treatment of Edward's sexuality in this article, and the statement that he was "Widely rumoured to have been either homosexual or bisexual" may reflect a consensus decision on how to resolve the issue, but it is definitely unsatisfactory. Firstly, it is unclear among whom and at what time this claim was "widely rumoured". If it is meant to describe claims made by modern historians, "rumoured" is not the right word. If it is meant to refer to contemporary speculation, it fails on two bases: 1) examples need to be cited; and 2) neither the terms "homosexual" or "bisexual" nor the concepts that these terms denote existed in fourteenth century England. How to rectify this problem is something I will leave to those with more historical knowledge and more experience editing in Wikipedia. Dadsnagem (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have always been puzzled by the meaning of the claim that the words "homosexual" and "bisexual" did not exist at a certain point in history and that therefore we should not use them. What would change if we wrote that he "was attracted by and preferred having sex with humans of his own gender" instead? Should we say that he was into sinful and shameless acts of sodomy, because that's what his contemporaries [would have] said? Should we avoid using all words that were not used in the 14th-century England? Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand and broadly agree with the academic debate over historical interpretation of sexuality (Foucault etc.) I remain to be convinced that it is helpful to extensively de-construct the "everyday" meaning of the terms in an encyclopedia article though, for exactly the reasons you suggest. There might be exceptions - e.g. if the reader would misinterpret the historical events without the subtle differences being explained. I'd agree that the lead could usefully explain a bit more about where the historical references to his sexuality come from - although this would need to be done carefully, given the nuances in the chronicles.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd think anything that needs doing needs to be done in reference to Phillips' new biography of Edward, which I have but haven't had a chance to read yet. Maybe this weekend... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really taking issue with our use of the terms "homosexual" or "bisexual" with regard to Edward II. If we take "widely rumoured" to refer to contemporary speculation, using these terms in this clause in effect puts these words in the mouths of Edward's contemporaries, which is anachronistic. (As I said before, if "widely rumoured" is meant to refer to modern history, it is the word "rumoured" that is inappropriate.) So, yes, these terms should not be employed here. Furthermore, it is at least questionable that the concept of sexual preference of or orientation to one's own sex existed in pre-modern times, so saying that he "was attracted by and preferred having sex with humans of his own gender" doesn't quite work either. The best solution, I think, would be to find some contemporary (or near-contemporary) accounts of Edward's sexual behavior or predilections and quote them directly. Modern scholarship could also be cited (and noted as such). Dadsnagem (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at his wife's article, Isabella of France. I'm pretty sure I picked out some specific phrases there that you could reuse for this article. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion thread really helpful? I ask that because reading the section on Gaveston it looks to me that we are including plenty of material on what contemporaries said and thought. Isn't this going over old ground? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Portraits

I wish someone could come up with an image of Edward from a more or less contemporary source to replace the three 19th century "fictional portraits" on this page. None of the three even resembles either of the others, except for the crown and the beard. They're a waste of space, and misleading besides. --Michael K Smith^Talk 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've dug out commons:File:Edward II - British Library Royal 20 A ii f10 (detail).jpg, which is probably not a portrait per se, as it was made somewhere in Northern England, but is definitely contemporary to his reign! I've moved the lead illustration down, removed the worst of the three, and added the new one to the infobox. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaveston's Age?

The text here states that Piers Gaveston "was considered to be athletic and handsome; he was a few years older", but the entries for both Edward and Gaveston give the year of birth as 1284 (OK, in Gaveston's case it is written as "c.", but still, it could have been stated as "BEFORE", not "circa", which allows for the possibility that Gaveston was younger than Edward). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.33.247.11 (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding sexual orientation category to this biography may be a WP:CAT/R#Sexuality violation

WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC).

We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour

Most people that are listed in the misleading LGBT categorization can also be connected with the following:

-Heteroflexibility -is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity despite a primarily heterosexual sexual :orientation that is considered to distinguish it from bisexuality.

-Pansexual- A person who is fluid in sexual orientation and/or gender or sex identity.

-Polyamory- is the practice of having multiple open, honest love relationships.

-Affectional orientation - To holders of this view, one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with, whether or not one desires that person sexually

-MSM- are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.

-Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from that which the person normally exhibits, due to a social environment that in :some way permits, encourages, or compels those acts.

Many people change their sexual behavior depending on the situation or at different points in their life. For example, men and women in a university may engage in bisexual activities, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents (or just after), both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible", "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation).

Sexual orientation

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time". "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."

Kinsey scale

Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of his or her sexual activity at a given time. Ituses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual.

References

User: Pgarret (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

Please stop smearing pages with this preposterous text, which has nothing whatever to do with Edward II. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

place among siblings

there is an inconsistency between this article and the one on Edward I. There, Edward II is shown at least the 14th child of Edward and Eleanor, here he is the 11th. I have no specialist knowledge, can anyone else verify and align?Lucyrjones (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How to settle the mystery of Edward II's death

Could the dispute over the death of Edward II be settled if a DNA test were done on his remains? Does anybody know who needs to be contacted so that this could be done? Freedom1968 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The the death is Edward II is currently being investigated by an international team of scientists and historians from Italy, The UK and the USA, including Huddersfield University and Pavia University, coordinated by the Auramala Project. The project will compare archival records in Italy with those in England, and carry out DNA testing on descendants of Edward II along the female lineIBKF (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

Thank you. I look forward to hearing about the results, though will this settle the mystery over his fate? There is no doubt over the children of Edward II, we know what happened to them. Only a DNA test on the bones that lie in the grave of Edward II in Gloucester Cathedral would determine whose bones they are. As a royal grave I assume that only the present Monarch could assent tests being conducted..

What DNA testing cannot tell us, is what actually happened at Berkley Castle in 1327, and certainly won't be able to confirm the accounts of a traumatic death for Edward II.

Perhaps when then have finished with the current project they could also give consideration to testing the "bones" of Edward V and his bother which were "discovered" at the Tower in Charles II's day.

Freedom1968 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

-) You don't give up easily, do you? However, it is an interesting hypothesis, which I was unaware of until you threw it up. I had one of his books for Christmas (the one on Mortimer) but it has not come to the top of the reading pile yet. Perhaps there is a prima facie case to answer. Deb (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

?:-) Oh yes indeed!. Re Mortimer book, yes I have that one as well and his theory is also quite convincing. Enough for the above two Univs to undertake a serious investigation. I won't spoil the book for you! Mortimer knows his stuff though as he has done books on Edward III and Henry V as well.

Back to the Dick 3 issue, you may care to look at the Henry VI talk page. "Mad "Hal was of course also deposed, and murdered (by most accounts) and guess who was suspected of giving the order.....? Freedom1968 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed cats about rumored sexuality

Removed the "Bisexual" cat a couple months ago and just now removed the "LGBT history prior to the 19th century" and "Gay royalty" cats. The main biographical text does not justify their inclusion (rumors aren't enough) and I seriously doubt Wikipedia allows their inclusion based upon depictions in popular entertainment. JayHubie (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing info on "Red hot poker"?

Strange, there is a reference entitled Red hot poker, or red herring? But no explanation or mention of the red hot poker or the idea of one in the text. What is missing? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again I am asking what is the agenda of certain editors who will not suffer any mention of the poker story. This is making you look foolish and ridiculous because the poker story, true or not, is the most famous thing most students around the world associate with this king. But someone wants to censor all mention of it from wikipedia? When you start making Wikipedia look foolish and ridiculous, it's time to shine more light on this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: My original note is no longer pertinent, but it's precisely some people's insistence on including unsourced content that makes Wikipedia look "foolish and ridiculous". If you have access to reliable sources, use them. BTW, Wikipedia:Burden_of_evidence#Burden_of_evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." --Technopat (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the one who looks like a fool here, because EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER READ A HISTORY BOOK KNOWS THIS and finding supporting references would be child's play, but clearly you are determined to use any pretext to stand in the way of the article actually being informative. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) As written, the additions are not at all NPOV. The general consensus of historians is that we don't know if Edward was murdered ... much less the means. Until the information can be better presented and with good sourcing, its probably better to not have it. At the moment, I don't have the time to dig into the sources and get it written up properly. But I'm against including the text as it is currently being edit warred over in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's two editors on this article who say it's "better" if wikipedia doesn't mention something that ANY OTHER SOURCE will mention. I feel an RFC coming real soon. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that the current text isn't NPOV and it's better to not have this bad text than to have no text on it at all. There is a difference between what I said and what you are saying I said. I said nothing about not mentioning the poker story ever - just that the current text is not good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous text turned out to be a copyvio of the only source that had been given already, "Red hot poker, or red herring". This king was so hated among his subjects, that the popular memory says he was killed in that manner when they caught him, but some historians now say the popular memory must be wrong since there is no proof of it, and a few wikipedians don't even want it mentioned how deeply hated this king was among his subjects. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The poker story doesn't show up in the narrative until the time that Mortimer fell from power. Some historians point out that there is evidence of a popular cult being paid to Edward after his death and that the poker story may have arisen in order to discredit Edward as a saint. That's hardly showing that Edward was deeply hated amongst his subjects! I'd really appreciate it if you'd quit throwing around accusations of other editors trying to suppress information or something. Did you notice that I properly sourced the information and it's now in the article? A bit of AGF would not go amiss here. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, obviously he wasn't deeply hated among his subjects at all, that's why they didn't fight him, capture him and kill him, eh? What a space cadet. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this how you normally treat people you run into on articles? I went to the trouble to actually source the information you wanted added in, but instead of "thanks" I get called a space cadet? Oddly enough, I've actually read the latest biography of Edward II - as well as a number of other works on the period. Some of Edward's nobles hated him, yes. But some of the commoners liked him enough to consider him a possible saint after his death... history is always much more nuanced than what popular culture says. Whatever, I hope you enjoy the fruits of your comments here - I certainly have no desire to interact with you and work on this article more. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

From the works I've read on Edward, Ealdgyth's accurately reflecting the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not normally like this but it is very rare that I find such a glaring omission being defended. But thank you for rectifying it with sources, I suppose it will do for now and is better than silence on possibly the most notorious tale told of this king. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think in any historical context you'll generally get a bunch of commoners believing their king was a saint - they tended to put them on pedestals even if not deserved. But like Eulenspiegel I agree the article must retain reference to the red hot poker story. It is bonkers not to have it. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Edward II's "killers"

"According to the Calendar of Fines Edward III (1327–1330) held at Winchester records office, Edward III made every effort to track down his father's killers, William Ockley (not Ogle), Sir Thomas Gurney, and Sir John Maltravers, but they fled the country."

I would like to see this better sourced/explained. I can find the Calendar of Fines online at archive.org, but the only mention of the alleged killers I can see is the following:

"1330. Membrane 11 cont. Dec. 9. Order to the sheriff of Gloucester to take into the king's hand Westminster, the lands, goods and chattels of Thomas de Gurneye, knight, and William de Ockeleye, who are cited for adherence to Roger de Mortuo Mari, late enemy of the king and realm, and divers other felonies and excesses against the king's peace, and have secretly withdrawn from the realm, not permitting themselves to receive justice thereon ; and to keep them safely until further order, so that he answer at the Exchequer for the issues of the said lands and for the said goods and chattels. By K. & C. The like to the sheriffs of Wilts, Somerset and Dorset." 11 Arlington (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reigning as Prince of Wales.,.

I've reverted, as in English, you don't "reign" as the Prince of Wales (which is what this infobox displays as). It's incorrect. The French infobox displays it as a "title", which is correct. If you're still keen to add it, worth having a look at the Royalty infobox template and seeing if there's a category for titles. Unless the dates are already in the main text, it will need a reliable reference though - I note this, as the wiki isn't a reliable source and can't be used as a reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hchc here. The last "reigning" prince of Wales is usually considered to be Llywelyn the Last but both Madog ap Llywelyn and Owain Glyndŵr claimed the title, but whether they effectively reigned is another matter. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It puzzles me that Welsh rulers used the title prince rather than king. According to ODNB Owain Gwynedd originally used the title king of Wales, only later changing it to prince. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

R. R. Davies (The Age of Conquest pp. 252-253) points out that in the 11th and 12th century, the rulers of the various Welsh polities were called "kings" often - but by the early 13th century "The old designation of king (L. rex W. brenin) was abandoned" and that all but the rulers of Gwynedd were called lords. Only in Gwynedd was the title "prince" used for the ruler. Why this is so, isn't something Davies goes into. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It probably is more sensible to have the infobox as Hchc2009 reverted it to. However, pre-Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, I don't think you can say it was just a title. The prince was the ruler of a defined territory outside of the kingdom of England and not subject to that Kingdom's institutions, albeit it was obtained through feudal grant. Moot point as to how distant the feudal relationship has to go before the holder of the land "reigns". Princelings of the Holy Roman Empire usually "reigned" and Llywelyn the Last did homage for his lands to Henry III, and sometimes "reigns"! DeCausa (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation style...

I'm looking to do some work on this article over the coming months. Before starting, I'd like to propose a change to the citation style. The current style, although not necessarily 100% consistent at the moment, typically uses long reference (see MOS:CITE). I wish to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template, with the bibliography using the "cite book" templates. As an example, see Henry I of England. I think that short citations for articles with lots of citations are easier to read and to edit. This would, I believe, represent a change, and would require prior consensus, as per MOS:CITE.

If the consensus was to retain long citations, I'd intend to tidy up the citations so that they are consistent etc., following the model at William the Conqueror. I've chosen this example specifically, as it is a featured article, and shows the long citation system at its best! Either system can work perfectly well, and I'll be carrying out the research etc. for the article regardless of which way the consensus on the citation system goes.

Comments welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If it helps you to do as good a job as you did on Henry III recently....absolutely. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa. If there are no objections raised in between now and then, I'll look to do the conversion tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - hopefully no glitches etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Expansion...

As promised in the previous section, I've gone through and expanded the article; everything should now be cited to a high-quality source (I think!), and should reflect the current literature. It will, I'm sure, need a copy-edit, and please shout if I've introduced any howlers etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward II of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, upon my initial review of this fantastic article, I feel that it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I plan on conducting a more comprehensive and thorough Good Article review of this article in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hchc2009, I have finished conducting a more thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I have a few minor comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comments. It looks like the article currently meets all the Good Article criteria, so once these have all been addressed, it is good to go for passage to GA status! I cannot stress enough that you have crafted a beautifully-written and well-researched article, Hchc! -- Caponer (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Background and Early life (1284–1307)

• In the first paragraph of the lead, you may want to add a comma after "In 1308" and other instances when introducing the year in the beginning of the sentence. (For example, "During the 1280s" in the "Background" section).
• In the first paragraph of "Background," wikilink "Castilian" to the Kingdom of Castile article.
• In the first paragraph of "Background," wikilink historians Michael Prestwich and John Gillingham.
• In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Childhood, personality and appearance" subsection, you may want to consider only using Edward once in the sentence. In the next sentence, modify "by the Dominican friar" to "by a Dominican friar."
• In the second paragraph of "Childhood, personality and appearance", modify "an good rider" to "a good rider."
• Wikilink Walter Langton in the third paragraph of the "Early campaigns in Scotland" subsection.
• In the fourth paragraph of the "Early campaigns in Scotland" subsection, modify "was saw a punitive, brutal retaliation" to "was seen as a punitive, brutal retaliation" or "saw a punitive, brutal retaliation" depending upon the sentence's intended meaning.

Early reign (1307–11)

• In the second paragraph, would it flow better if the marriage between Edward and Isabella "moved forward" rather than "went ahead?"
• Wikilink mention of the Treaty of Paris (1303).
• Should Robert Winchelsey be named, in addition to mentioning his title, Archbishop of Canterbury?
• In the third paragraph of "Tensions over Gaveston", "fresh" is used three times--could alternative adjectives be used as well?
• In the second paragraph of "The Ordinances of 1311," should it read "split between reformers and conservatives?"

Mid-reign (1311–21)

• Everything in this section looks good to go--great job!

Later reign (1321–26)

• In the first paragraph of "War with France," there should probably be a comma placed after "In 1323."
• Everything else in this section looks great!

Fall from power (1326–27), Death (1327), Edward as king, and Legacy

• No further suggestions.

Issue

• Edward's issue should probably be listed in a template similar to those in other Featured and Good Articles, for example: Edward I of England, Edward III of England, Henry VIII of England, etc.

Very many thanks for the careful review - it's improved the text a lot. The only change I haven't made is the final one on issue; there are a couple of variants out here in terms of style, and examples of Featured Articles that use the format in this one include Henry I of England, Henry III of England and Stephen of England. I wouldn't oppose anyone converting between the two, but I'll admit a personal preference for the simpler one! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, that's definitely not a deal breaker! The issue section will read the same either way; it's just a difference in formatting. Once again, it has sincerely been a pleasure working with you throughout this process. I've been a fan of your work for sometime, and I commend you for all your stellar contributions to Wikipedia. Since this article meets all criteria and you've addressed my concerns and suggestions, I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to discuss...

Contaldo80, just to say that I'm very happy to discuss the historical work on Edward II and sexuality if that helps at all (NB: if you haven't already seen it, I'd strongly recommend the 2006 contributions to the "New Perspectives" volume if you've got access to it). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that we can cooperate constructively. However, for the moment I'm concerned that you've misundertood my amendments. Firstly I added a good chunk of material covering what is said in various contemporary chronicles - as this is the best primary material we have then no reason why it shouldn't be used. And I was puzzled as to why you removed it. For example, the assertion that Edward's father-in-law was not concerned about Edward's sexual inclinations is wrong - he did have his suspicions. More fundamentally I do think we need to be careful about using the word "homosexual". Not because I'm personally squeamish but rather because it is slightly anachronistic. The issue is rather did Edward have physical - or romantic - relations with men (as well as women as this is documented)? Would we say, for example, that Edward has heterosexual relations with Isabella? Probably not as the phrasing is odd. Perhaps we can come up with a sensible approach between us. I also removed some of the editorialising about how we see things differently in the 21st century; I don't think that's needed. And I'm not sure the medieval church did see sodomy as heretical - but agree it was often cited as one of the things that heretics did. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate to describe a sexual relationship between two men as homosexual, whether the men lived 60 years ago or 600 years ago, but it is not necessary to do so when it is clear that we are talking about two men. I agree with Contaldo, though, that constantly describing the possible sexual relationship between Edward and another man as homosexual is as unnecessary as describing his relationship with his wife as heterosexual. Furthermore, if he and Gaveston were lovers, they could not have been anything but "homosexual lovers". Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cheers. My thoughts:

• In terms of the use of primary sources, the guidance is from WP:PRIMARY; we shouldn't, typically, be citing primary sources on the wiki, but rather the very best of the secondary sources from specialist historians (which is the inverse of normal scholarly practice, I know...!) Interpreting medieval chronicles is really hard, which is why we turn to secondary sources.
• Using authors like Ian Crofton and David Loades for an article like this needs to be done with a great deal of care. Crofton writes general, popular reference books, and isn't a professional historian, let alone a medieval specialist. Loades is a notable 16th century Tudor specialist, but beyond the odd comment in popular history books on the history of England as a whole, has never written in detail on the 14th century that I'm aware of. His opinions on the Tudor period are really important... but he's not a specialist on Edward II, and his views on Philip IV don't tally up with those of the historical experts on that specific period. We should be drawing on the top historians on the early 14th century - I'll give Mark Ormrod as a classic example - for the opinions being cited. (Equally, you wouldn't normally use Ormrod as a source for an article on the Tudor court in the 1500s - I'd be turning to Loades for that, it works both ways!)
• Homosexual/ sexual. There are clearly a range of different views among historians on how to use the terminology here (for some "homosexual" carries particular 21st century cultural baggage, for others it doesn't; some would follow Foucault on this, others wouldn't etc.). Provided we're consistent within the article, as per Surtsicna's recent edits for example, I'm personally reasonably relaxed. If we can get consensus on this language, leaving a hidden note in the text for later editors would be no bad thing either.
• The commentary about how homosexuality/sexuality was seen is brought up by several key historians on the period when discussing Edward II, and I think therefore needs to be in there. It also helps explain why this was a charged issue. I'll double-check the original source for the wording to make sure it hasn't lost anything in translation! If other specialists disagree with the sexuality/heresy linkage, then we should reflect and cite it of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Some constructive comments - thanks. Some of your approaches for dealing with different parts of the material seem broadly sensible. Happy also to use Ormrod as he was one of my lecturers at college :) But having had a read of where we are, I have some outstanding concerns. Firstly, while I accept that it's not appropriate for us to insert primary sources based on our own research; it is ok to use them where historians (secondary sources) have cited them to illuminate a point. So I don't know why we dropped the quotes from the Vita Edwardus Secundi and the Flores Historiarum? My preference would be to re-include them. Secondly is it really true that Mark Ormrod has said that homosexuality was "equated" with heresy? Perhaps many "heretics" were frequently accused by the Church of sodomy etc; but that's not to say the Church automatically defined someone as a heretic if they had engaged in sodomy. Some clarification needed I think. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to meet Ormrod - I've enjoyed his work!

I'd argue that it remains essential on the wiki to be using primary sources in accordance with, and cited to, the best secondary source. The second half of the Secundi quote isn't used by Phillips and most of the others, but Chaplais picks it up, and, if you're content, I'd propose adding it in and reference it to him accordingly; he notes that it's meaning is "disappointingly vague", though! Flores seems to be treated with caution (explicitly so by Phillips, who cautions against it as a source; I can't find it being used by the other clutch of current academics here) so I'm a bit more reticent on that.

The sentence that runs: "Homosexuality was fiercely condemned by the Church in 14th-century England, who equated it with heresy" is cited to Prestwich, who notes that "it was tantamount to heresy" and talks about the "church's condemnation of homosexuality". I can see that there could potentially be a subtle difference between saying that homosexuality could be equated with heresy, and the sense that it was tantamount to heresy (although tantamount can certainly mean "equivalent to"), so if we can find a better/more precise phrasing, happy to discuss it. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant legal sources for common law at the time are Fleta and Britton (law). Both prescribe the death penalty. Fleta, xxxviii.3: Those who have dealings with Jews or Jewesses, those who commit bestiality, and sodomists, are to be buried alive after legal proof that they were taken in the act, and public conviction". Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted." 71.246.145.152 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use LGBT label on Edward II of England

It is total affront to good historical, scholarly research such labels! Why so asks a layman? 1. Applying anachronistic concepts on historical people and events are a definitive NO NO! (ex. In the USSR, according to the Marxist-Leninist Theory of History Thomas Müntzer was a communist - a pure example of anachronism) 2. No source or a support of a widely held view among scholars. Major Torp (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy guidelines on this appears to be Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality. This states that "For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT."

Current mainstream historians almost all agree that it is impossible to know for certain today what the details of Edward's sexual relationships in the 13th-14th centuries were; all agree that he had some sexual relations with women, and many believe that he probably also had sexual relations with men. Opinions on the interpretation of these conclusions - e.g. whether Edward is best described as straight, homosexual, etc., or whether these labels are not helpful - vary considerably. Among the artistic community, of course, Edward has been widely depicted as a homosexual (Jarman's film being perhaps the most obvious example).

Given the Wiki guidelines, which explicitly address the use of the LGBT category label for historical figures, and the historical literature on his sexuality, I would consider the LGBT category to be appropriate in this case. If there are concerns about the guidelines and anachronism, I think it would be best to take that up on the relevant talk page, rather than article by article. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any further inputs, I don't think there's a consensus for removing these categories and will reinstate them. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying yourself that "current mainstream historians almost all agree that it is impossible to know for certain today what the details of Edward's sexual relationships" yet despite that you're still thinking that these labels should apply? You are saying yourself that there is no consensus among historians as to what Edward's sexuality was, therefore how does it meet the guidelines to include these labels? I apologize for not commenting earlier, As I only just noticed this discussion today (and I could argue that since you're the only one who wants to add them here, there's no consensus for including it). Psunshine87 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's broadly my opinion. Current historians almost all agree that it is impossible to know for certain what happened in private between two people in the 13-14th century; many historians do believe, however, that Edward probably had sexual relations with men, sufficient in my opinion to justify the category label being present in the article. Several editors have now removed the existing categories, and several have added them back in, and I don't believe that the discussion so far here on the talk page has produced a clear consensus for change. Where no consensus on an edit exists, the usual guidelines are for the original version to remain in place, and the existing version of the text prior to the removal of the categories on 26 October included the categories (and they seem to have been present since Willthacheerleader18 added them back in June). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then I'll remove any objection on my part to their inclusion. Your argument seems sound. Psunshine87 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Psunshine. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV , WP:FRINGE and WP:ASSERT. That “Edward probably had sexual relations with men” is not enough. Please read WP:CHERRY fact picking, WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, WP:WEIGHT.

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive. Multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact.

That you say so, does not make it so. Provide sources that support the idea of strong unequivocal research that say "Edward had sexual relations with men" which is of course in line with verifiable scholarly consensus.

Thank you! Let's make it solid. Major Torp (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Torp, if you're looking for some reading on this topic, I'd suggest starting with the works cited in the article, which covers the current academic corpus on Edward fairly comprehensively. The two most recent biographies by Haines and Phillips would give you a framework, and I'd then recommend working through the relevant chapters on sexuality in Dodd and Musson's edited volume The Reign of Edward II. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about who reading what! It's about someone claiming something and hence obliged to provide multiple sources and provide a view that respects a general academic consensus. Find sources, and then we can speculate about person who lived 700 years ago in a totally different world than ours. Please don't make the ideological mistake of justifying something with anarchistic projections from our present-day to the past. KIndly respect neutrality and observe WP:SYN, WP:WEIGHT, WP:YESPOV , WP:FRINGE, WP:ASSERT, WP:NOR and especially WP:SCICON. Thanks, Major Torp (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to read the academic sources cited in the article concerning Edward's sexuality, Torp, I'm not sure there's much more I can do to help you. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't claim that you want the article to cover "a general academic consensus" when you've been told where to read to FIND that academic consensus. It IS covered in this article - although it appears you don't agree with it so you wish it gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Edward of Caernarfon?

Was he really called Edward of Caernarfon? I suspect he was called Edward of Carnarvon. When I was a child, back in the 1960s, the town's name was Caernarfon if you were speaking Welsh, but Carnarvon or Caernarvon if you were speaking English (similar thing for Conway/Conway). Since then, it's been decided that the modern name of the town is Caernarfon in both languages. But back in Edward's day it would, for an English speaker, have been almost certainly spelt as Carnarvon. As titles go, the current Lord Carnarvon is still Lord Carnarvon. So I believe that he should be referred to as Edward of Carnarvon, because he was England, spoke English rather than Welsh, and we are in English Language Wikipedia rather than Welsh Language Wikipedia (Edward ap Caernarvon?) Simhedges (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Edward would have spoken Anglo-Norman French as his birth language. And most anything written would have been in Latin, rather than English or Welsh. English kings had French as their first language until Henry V ... almost a hundred years after Edward II. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edward was born in Carnarvon, Carnarvonshire, not Caernarfon, Gwnedd. What we are debating is whether we should discuss a person as in a different time and distant place, or "update" him to somehow retain relevance to today and the same GPS coordinates. My vote is to guide the reader to understand how different the time and place were yet how Edward had the same human qualities we see today. He was born in a location under military rule very different from the Caernarfon of today, in a motte and bailey castle very different from the stone castle seen today. Tourists will still visit beautiful Caernarfon; there is no reason to skew the history. Regarding Latin and Norman French: spelling was rather fluid in that era so look to the document forming Carnarvonshire for the spelling in use at his birth.68.32.154.213 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Carnavonshire was created by the Statute of Rhuddlan which was in Latin. As Ealdgyth says, Edward spoke Norman-French. I'm not sure what either the medieval Latin or medieval Norman-french for Caernarfonshire was but I suspect that neither would give you "Caernarfon" or "Carnarvon". So claiming that either is "right" or "wrong" is spurious. The normal convention is generally to use the modern place-name. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with Eadldyth's comments from last year on the Latin point. Either way, though, we should be following the practice set by high-quality, reliable secondary sources on Edward (as the article does), rather than straying into OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

At WP:NCGN and it says this:

If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.

The debate regarding his appellation differs from the debate regarding the name of the castle and town of his birth. A book that rehashes older secondary sources for the purpose of sales in the castle gift shop, but lack original contributions to scholarship or research, is not a reliable secondary source for Edward's accepted historical names. Edward is usually referred to today as Edward II, and in multiple scholarly works has also been referred to as Edward of Carnarvon (for example: The Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon, by Thomas Frederick Tout); in today's English language, Édouard de Carnarvon in today's French language, and Edward o Caernarfon in today's Welsh language.68.32.154.213 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The information is cited to Seymour Phillips' 2011 volume, a 679-page peer reviewed book published by Yale University Press, one of the leading academic presses in the world - I can't vouch for Yale University Press's intent in publishing it, or Phillips' in writing it, but I doubt that it was aimed at sales in the local castle gift shop in North Wales... ;) Tout died in 1929, and his work is no longer authoritative for this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous/Misleading: Wine and Pimento

Sorry, I'm not wiki-savvy enough to have the confidence to edit it, but found this surprising "a fountain that produced wine and pimento, a spiced medieval drink" (because it's pre-Columbus). It turns out that pimento in this context is a drink on its own, and has no relationship to the sweet chilli. Re-wording it to "a fountain that produced pimento, a spiced medieval drink, and wine..." would remove the ambiguity and resulting confusion. , but there are probably more suitable references. Urilabob (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Categories

I have removed the "LGBT" categories because the article is well-referenced to the effect that Edward's homosexuality is a matter of dispute. This is certainly a notable discussion, but, as the article is aware:

"Michael Prestwich and Seymour Phillips have argued that the public nature of the English royal court would have made it unlikely that any homosexual affairs would have remained discreet; neither the contemporary Church, Edward's father nor his father-in-law appear to have made any adverse comments about Edward's sexual behaviour"

You do not get to "out" people as "LGBT" merely because some commentator has speculated they might have had a homosexual relationship. There needs to be positive self-identification, or overwhelming consensus of historians. Even if there was such a consensus, the appropriate category would be Category:Homosexual people, and not "LGBT people", as we don't have a single reference associating Edward with the (post-1990) "LGBT" moniker. See also {{Subjective category}}.

I am documenting this perfectly straightforward category edit here beause it has been reverted by User:Contaldo80, not based on any argument related to the subject matter but with a threatening edit summary,

"This is all rather disruptive. Try talk page before trying to push some sort of POV agenda on hundreds of article pages. Administrators please take note."

I am editing here as a contributor, not an admin, but for context please note that I have been an administrator since 2004 and I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia policy, and I know the difference between a content dispute and "disruptive editing".

I am not "pushing an agenda" (not categorising somebody is not making a judgement as to their sexuality. I have no opinion on the sexual orientation of Edward II, and I am not categorizing Edward II as a "straight medieval person" -- which category for some strange reason we do not even seem to have. It's almost as if sexual orientation is not an encyclopedic question unless it is directly tied to the notablility of a person). I am happy to assume that the miscategorisation was an honest mistake based on incomplete information, but the behavior of Contaldo80 does seem to at least suggest the presence of a "POV agenda" being present at least in this particular contributor. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What POV agenda are you accusing me of? State clearly here and present the evidence or retract and apologise. "There needs to be positive self-identification, or overwhelming consensus of historians" - this is again your opinion and not what the guidance states with regards to this category. The use of "straight" is also offensive - as the opposite then becomes "bent". Or are you suggesting that it would be better to refer to "Bent royalty"? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachman. The categories bisexual men and bisexual royalty assume that the subject of the article is bisexual. His sexuality is uncertain, so the categories are not appropriate. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm less sure. Our policy on this doesn't require us to be "certain"; if memory serves, it requires that reliable sources "commonly and consistently" use this as a defining characteristic of the subject. It is certainly commonly discussed in relation to Edward; I think the "consistent" bit is more questionable, as there are obviously exceptions, but even those critiquing the homosexuality theory still expend considerable space in their works discussing the issue. We also talk in the policy about a "consensus" in reliable sources for historical figures; a consensus doesn't have to be unanimous or overwhelming. On balance I'd be inclined to go with Contaldo on this one at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Burial & Cult

We read the expression ' and a canopy made of oolite and Purbeck stone.' but this is confusing. Oolitic limestone is one type found in Purbeck. Purbeck marble is another. Roach is yet another. 'Purbeck stone could be any of them.Dean1954 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dean. Will fish the book out later and cross-check. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_datesJhood1 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Edward II reign dates being (8 Jul 1307 - 20 Jan 1327):

• Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.39
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 34
• Plantagenet England (Michael Prestwich) “Edward II was deposed on 20 January” p.29
• Quote from Handbook of British Chronology: 'By 1307, quite clearly, political theory had made an advance towards the conception that the king never dies, for Edward II’s reign was assumed to begin on the day following his father’s death’ p.31

Jhood1 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over capitalization...

This needs to stop and discussion needs to take place here rather than continuing to slow-move edit war over this. If it continues, protection may be necessary or worse, blocks. Start your discussion below, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES - The noun is unmodified, when it denotes a title, e.g. "Richard Nixon was President of the United States." or "Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792)." In this article, the sentence reads "Edward II (25 April 1284 – 21 September 1327), also called Edward of Carnarvon, was King of England from 1307". This is unmodified, denoting a title and so is capitalized. If it read "Edward was the king of England who was defeated at the Battle of Bannockburn". This would be modified, denoting an office, and is therefore lowercase. Spleodrach (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This nearly confused me until I started realizing the difference between a title and an office. I have agree and say that Spleodrach's edits are in fact correct per MOS:JOBTITLES. Also I never really thought that capitalization would really cause an edit war. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

---

 Administrator note Well, you got three days to figure it out. That should be plenty of time. El_C 06:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I made my case quite clearly above, then@Joefromrandb: just reverted without commenting here. I'd like to know their reasons for edit warring without discussion. Spleodrach (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions of murder

The comment that a suggested method of murder by anal insertion seems unlikely has a counter-argument. Sir Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, reasons that, although abdicate, Edward would still be considered a king. To incise the king's body as with a blade would be a great sin according to divine law. However, his murderers may have observed, with great irony, that the use of an existing orifice would be permitted, particularly since the king had himself done so.
Might be worth a footnote. Dmforcier (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"King killed by a red hot poker" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King killed by a red hot poker. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#King killed by a red hot poker until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)