Edward II and the real world

My gut feeling is that Edward II was murdered at Berkely Castle - based on the grounds that Mortimer, in particular, couldn't afford to let him live.

However, I don't discount the theories that he survived as modern conspiracy theories - there is evidence that some people believed Edward survived from his 'own time'. Just as there were people who believed 'the little princes' survived.

Alianore wrote That's a fascinating question. I tend to think that Ed wasn't really that aware of how unpopular he was

and how many royals have been caught out by that? The out-pouring of grief that Princess Diana's death caught the Queen and her family totally unawares - not to mention rumours of murder in that case. The same themes continue to run through royal history.

I don't think Ed had any idea how unpopular he had become - and even if he did, there was no real precedent for deposing a king - he could have had no idea what was to happen to him.

Personal feelings shouldn't influence the way you think... It's a good thing that you keep an open mind and don't completely discard the evidence, like others do!

Imagine that Roger's ghost has filed an appeal, Ian Mortimer is his lawyer and you are a member of the jury. Considering the new developments in the case, would you still vote for the death penalty (or eternal unrest - *bitter smile*) for murder with the hand on your heart? Would you so easily deal a death judgment and take somebody's life before being 'deadly' sure of the guilt? Just think about it, if the appeal were real and somebody's life really depended on your decision!

I think both sides can offer arguements to support their case - and what's that old adage " where there's smoke ...."

Many people of the time thought there was the possibility that Edward survived.

It does depend on your own views - but again, judging the evidence based upon the times in question and not our own times - and not using hindsight. That's the catch - there is much we know now that was unknown then ... if you follow my meaning.

The problem with putting Roger on trial in this day and age is the same as the Richard III trial in the mid 1980s. There isn't enough evidence to convict in a court of law as the law stands today. But that doesn't mean Richard didn't do it - and I guess the same would be true of Mortimer.

I think Mortimer is guilty because I can't see any reason for keeping Edward II alive. And I am guilty of using the examples of the depositions of Richard II and III. The case of Edward II differs in that he was deposed so that his own son could rule by powerful courtiers and his mother. Leaving a deposed king alive always poses the danger that he could be rescued - and even if Edward didn't want to be king and refused to challenge his son, there's always the danger he could fall into the wrong hands and be manipulated.

I appreciate the case Ian Mortimer makes - that keeping Edward II alive was a means of controlling Edward III. But I can't imagine Mortimer taking the risk. However, that poses the question - did Mortimer realise that there would come a time when he wold have to answer to Edward III for the death of Edward II? And that would be a reason, IMO, to keep him alive.

I need to do more reading on the topic.

Another point to consider - rumours about Edward II being still alive could be used to spread unrest.

Why not? Keeping an insurance looks like good policy.

Alianore has a great post on her blog about the fishy parts in Edward's death.

What point would there have been in spreading such news? Who would have benefited? Most certainly not Roger, since he already had to deal with several escape attempts and further unrest would have complicated things for him even more. Making people believe the ex-king was still alive would have been the last thing he wanted.

elflady wrote:

What point would there have been in spreading such news? Who would have benefited? Most certainly not Roger, since he already had to deal with several escape attempts and further unrest would have complicated things for him even more. Making people believe the ex-king was still alive would have been the last thing he wanted.

Exactly. If rumours were deliberately spread that Edward was still alive, it certainly wasn't Roger Mortimer and Isabella doing the spreading - and by late 1329, they were prosecuting people for saying that Edward II was still alive.

The other deposed kings of medieval England were deposed by adult men - Richard II by Henry IV, Henry VI by Edward IV, and Edward V by Richard III - who ruled in their own right, not in the name of an underage king. That's one big difference between the deposition (or abdication, if you will) of Edward II and the others. None of the other deposed kings were replaced by their sons. Another difference. That's one reason why I think using the examples of other medieval kings really doesn't work in Edward II's case. Roger Mortimer knew for certain that Edward III wouldn't be 14 forever, that he'd grow up and start to rule in his own right - so, unlike the other 'deposers' (for want of a better word! RM knew that if he had Ed II killed, one day he'd have to answer to someone for the death - and not just anyone, the man's own son.

Hi Elflady - yes, I have been reading Alianore's blog on the death of Edward, and I agree with Alianore's above post about comparing the depositions of Richard II, Henry VI/Edward IV and Edward V. It is flawed in that Edward II's deposition was the first one of the established monarchy - really, it would set the precedent for the others, if they believed that Edward II had been murdered.

Guess I should say I am coming around to the theory that Edward II was not murdered at Berkely castle...... Mortimer would never get round that prickly problem with Edward III - explaining why he had murdered his father. Edward II's deposition was unique. Mortimer could use him for leverage for survival, and, consider Edward II own position, still alive, and being a living threat to his son's survival.

If Edward II was Mortimer's insurance policy, how did it all go wrong for him? Obviously, he and Isabella misjudged the young Edward III, and, even if Edward did not take revenge for his father being murdered, he certainly took it for him being deposed.

I also believe it would make sense for Edward II to either being kept in custody for the rest of his life, and actually accepting his deposition - his reign was seen as a disaster by his contemporaries, and he had lost both his favourites, Piers and Despencer, in violent circumstances. Maybe he truly did choose to repent - and maybe he considered it best for his son. In reality, how on earth could he go about re-claiming his throne from his son?

I honestly don't think Mortimer even had any intention of telling Edward II that he (Mortimer) may have had his (Edward's ) father murdered.

The consensus at the time was that Mortimer hoped to "replace" Edward with his own offspring and thus create a new line of kingship. So there really was no need, in Mortimer's eyes, for either Edwards. And wasn't Mortimer under the mistaken understanding that Edward II was a pliable tool in his hands.

Personally, had Mortimer's "plan" succeeded Edward III would have soon followed his father.

No? So how on earth did he find out? It's woodoo then, since Edward III's reaction at the trials in 1330 cleary showed he knew very well what had happened. Why did he allow lord Berkeley to walk if he truly were accomplice to murder, after having said those weird words?

Right, so what of John? Or the girls for that matter, since Salic law did not apply in England? And how would Isabelle have reacted? Or do you think he would've killed her too? Gosh, a real shoot'em all party, LOL!

Hi Melisende,


The consensus at the time was that Mortimer hoped to "replace" Edward with his own offspring and thus create a new line of kingship.

But was that chronicle rumours? How much truth is there that that was Mortimer's plan? I can't see how Mortimer could hope to achieve that, with Isabella's powerful relatives, and Philippa of Hainnault.

Mortimer is no more than an over-mighty subject - would he really aim as high as what the Duke of Lancaster hinted at?

And Elflady is right - there were other family members such as John to consider.

A supposed eyewitness to Ed II's deposition in Jan 1327 (whose name escapes me at the moment) claims that Ed was threatened that if he didn't abdicate of his own free will, his son would not become king, but 'one who is not of royal blood' - not named, but presumably Roger Mortimer.

That's complete nonsense. I really doubt that Ed II believed it, and if he did, it can only be because he was deeply emotional and not thinking straight. (He abdicated because he realised he had no other choice.) There wasn't a snowflake's chance in hell that Mortimer was going to be king of England. Isabella would never allow her children to be disinherited, however infatuated she was with Mortimer. Parliament would never have allowed it. The hundreds of people who had a better claim to the throne than Mortimer would never have allowed it. There isn't even a remote possibility that the royal line of England could have been set aside for a mere baron and his children. As Elflady points out, Ed II had a younger son and 2 daughters, then there was his 2 half-brothers Norfolk and Kent, his cousin Lancaster (grandson of Henry III), his nephew-in-law Surrey, etc etc. Mortimer would have had to cull most of the English nobility to have had a stab at the throne.

After Ed II's death was announced, and for the next 3 years, Ed III would have had to be mentally subnormal not to even consider the possibility that Mortimer had had him killed - whether or not Mortimer told him that he had!

Truth is always the first victim....

Whether Mortimer could have actually replaced Edward II with himself is neither here nor there - that some believed that this could take place is important to consider. Would Isabella have put aside her children from her marriage to Edward II in favour of supposed offspring from Mortimer - Emma of Normandy did such a thing .. it was not unheard of.


True, Salic Law did not apply in England, but remembering the time of Matilda, a female monarch - more importantly a reigning female monarch - was not on the cards - England was not ready, I think, just yet.

Did Edward III have some knowledge of Mortimer's involvement in Edward II's "removal" - of course he did.

Mortimer's grandiose plans may never have eventuated - but the mere thought that they could - or more to the point - that some consider that they could gives one pause to think.

And culling the royal family to make way for one's own - fast forward a hundred years or so - to the Wars of the Roses. And go even further to Tudor times.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but in assessing the time of interest, one must be careful not to inject our own modern-day preconceptions and knowledge of events, but consider events from the perspective of those living at the time, as the events themselves unfolded without the knowledge of their consequences.

Nobody believed Mortimer could replace Ed III as king. It was used as a threat against Ed II when he proved stubborn about agreeing to abdicate. And Isabella had no offspring by Mortimer to replace her children by Ed. She may have been pregnant in 1329/30, but she wasn't in early 1327.

I don't know much about Emma of Normandy, but as far as I know, her son by Cnut became king, not her son by Ethelred (until some years later) - but the point is that Cnut was king of England. Roger Mortimer wasn't. There's no precedent in England for the children of a queen by her lover to replace her children by her husband. Her children with Mortimer would have been illegitimate (Mortimer's wife was alive until 1356, so he couldn't marry Isabella) so would have been barred from the throne on those grounds anyway. Cnut was Emma's husband, not her lover.

The Wars of the Roses are not comparable, because the duke of York had a better claim to the throne than Henry VI, by descent from Ed III's second son. The Tudor situation - Henry VII had a very weak claim to the throne, but Richard III's son was dead. Ed II's children weren't.

Later culls of the royal family were carried out by other branches of the royal family. Roger Mortimer was in no sense a member of the royal family.

England probably wasn't ready for a reigning queen, so if both Ed II's sons had died, whoever married his elder daughter would have been the de facto ruler of England - see for example the Maid of Norway, who died in 1290. It was taken for granted that the man she married (Ed II, if she'd lived) would rule Scotland.

I totally agree with your last point - so I don't see the relevance of discussing later events? We're talking about 1327, and therefore, things that happened in the 15th century have no relevance. No-one in 1327 could know that 160 years later a Welshman with a weak claim to the throne was going to invade England and make himself king.

Alianore is right, what's the point in discussing if it could have happened or not, or what people might or might not have believed about it? And above all else, why extrapolate? Looks like you're the one talking in hindsight, Melisende, asserting that if such a thing happened many times in history in diverse circumstances then it was wont to happen that one time too... We're not talking what ifs or fantasizing parallel histories, we're talking reality. And the reality is it didn't happen.

I can't see Isabella allowing Mortimer to replace her son with his own son. Her link to the throne was through her son, Edward III. Any children she had by Mortimer would have no claim to the throne. And she could hardly put forward the claims of any children she might have had with Mortimer - it would be too much of a risk to attempt.

Re the Wars of the Roses - I agree with Alianore - it was branches of the same royal family jockeying for the crown.

It can be said that Henry VII had a weak claim to the throne - but considering many of the other candidates had been 'dealt with', and his promise to marry Elizabeth of York, his claim is understandable.

And on the subject of Henry VII - reminds me of the deposition of Edward V. No news was given out about the fate of the princes until 1502, when the alledged 'confession' of Brackenberry was published - just in time for the royal wedding of prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon - surely to re-assure Ferdinand and Isabella that there were no serious claimants to the throne. Edward V was never seen again after August 1483. His usurper, Richard III, never gave any indication of what had happened to Edward and his brother. I know this deposition is a popular area of controversy in discussion - who killed 'the little princes' - or if they actually survived - but it does make me think that if Richard III refused to reveal what he knew, and with many Richardians claiming the princes were alive - it does make me think once again Mortimer may have kept Edward II alive.

But then again, I'm convinced Richard murdered Edward V and his brother - purely because he couldn't risk leaving them alive to be a threat to his throne. But in murdering them, he left the way clear for Henry Tudor. But he could never have forseen such a 'mistake'.