Death

So, was Edward murdered by red-hot poker in September 1327? Or by some other method, such as smothering? Or...did he survive?!

Anyone hold an opinion they'd like to share?

I see that Elflady has added some info about this on the Isabella thread. Briefly, there's some evidence that Edward II was alive after 1327:

the Fieschi letter, written by an Italian priest, which claims that Edward escaped from Berkeley Castle and made his way to Ireland, France, Brabant and Cologne, and ultimately Italy;

the Earl of Kent's conviction in 1329/30 that his half-brother was alive, despite attending his funeral;

the 'pretender' called William the Welshman who met Edward III in Germany in 1338, claiming to be his father, and wasn't executed;

and the letter written by the Archbishop of York in 1329 or 1330, to a London merchant, arranging clothes and money for the 'old king' when he was released.

Several other things too, but that should do for now!

- the fact that lord Berkley denied in court any accusation concerning the king's death;

- the fact that Edward III publicly restored Roger Mortimer's name a few years later.

For more evidence on Edward's possible survival, please read Alianore's posts on her blog. She summarized all facts that might lead to the conclusion that Edward DID survive after all. I, for one, do believe that he wasn't murdered, as stated before in history books. Recent studies indicate it. What do you guys think on the matter and why?

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on the subject of Edward's death...and Alianore's blog posts are wonderful...I am interested in how anyone can 'prove' what happened such a long time ago. Each version seems convincing until someone debunks that theory. I admit that Alianore's arguments are persuasive...but I must confess to being bewildered at how historians may have 'got it wrong' for so many centuries. I am healthily skeptical so I must read more on the subject. Elflady you suggest "recent studies" have indicated Roger Mortimer's innocence...can you point me in their direction? I would love to increase my knowledge so I can look as clever as you all do on this forum. *winks*

One of the recent research studies would be Ian Mortimer's article "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle", published in the English Historical Review, Nov. 2005, which contains an analysis of the pro and con written evidence of the time, of the actual circumstances of the event and of the way the news of the death circulated (tracking it to one single source, the letters of Lord Berkeley, carried by Thomas Gurney). It also contains an analysis of Lord Berkeley's testimony in court, of King Edward III's reaction, of the possible reasons both for murder and faked murder and of different other pieces of evidence.

And, of course, Ian Mortimer's book "The Greatest Traitor" and Alison Weir's "Isabella".

But, apart from research studies... everyone knows what prosecution had to say. After reading the summary of facts that constitute the defense, what would your verdict be in the case?

I still lean towards him being murdered in 1327, although not in the red hot poker/ screams heard in the town way. Ex-Kings were just far too dangerous to have hanging around, just ask Richard II, Henry VI, Lady Jane Grey and Charles I.

I am intrigued by the Earl of Kent plot though. He was obviously conviced Edward was still alive, enough that he risked (and ultimately lost) his life trying to free him. It seems to me that the Archbishop of York story is possibly tied together with this as Kent wouldn't act on his own and would need to privide the "old King" with money, clothes, etc in order to escape, I assume they didn't quite have the resources for a tilt at taking the throne back straight away?

I'd love to know more about what started Kent thinking Edward was alive, if he was linked to the Archbishop of York in any way, maybe they were plotting together to free him or did the Archbishop know that Edward was alive? Did Mortimer want Kent out of the way and lure him out with the rumour that his brother was alive.

You probably have blog posts coming but how far did Kent's plan to free Edward get? Was it at the letter writing/ planning stage, did he gather any forces?

Kent wrote a letter to Edward II at Corfe Castle (or 'Edward II') which he handed to a member of the garrison, John Deveril. Deveril gave it to Roger Mortimer, who read it out at Kent's trial. Kent wrote "...I have the assent of almost all the great lords of England, with all their apparel, that is to say with armour, and with treasure without limit, in order to maintain and help you in your quarrel so you shall be king again as you were before."

Two things are interesting: the records of the Parliament that condemned Kent in March 1330 are missing, were not referred to even in the Nov 1330 Parliament that reversed the charges against Kent (VERY unusual) and are only known from the Brut chronicle. And it appears that the March 1330 Parliament never stated that Edward II was actually dead.

The sentence against Kent was: "the tenor of your letter is that you were on the point of rescuing that worshipful knight Sir Edward, sometime king of England, your brother, and to help him become king again, and to govern his people as he was wont to do beforehand, thus impairing the state of our liege lord the present king. The will of the court is that you shall lose both life and limb, and your heirs shall be disinherited for evermore, save the grace of our lord the king."

Ian Mortimer has drawn attention to the role of Sir John Pecche, who was Constable of Corfe Castle from Dec 1325 to Sept 1329, when he was replaced by John Maltravers. Pecche was therefore in a good position to know if Ed II was held at Corfe or not, and it's fascinating to see that he and his son were ordered to be arrested in March 1330 for aiding the Earl of Kent.

The Archbishop of York wrote that he had "certain news" that Ed II was alive and well, in Jan 1329 or 1330 (probably the latter). Whether he heard this from Kent or another source, I don't know...

At the beginning of 1330, England was awash with rumours that either Kent or the earl of Lancaster, or both (both men were out of England at the time) were going to invade the country with armed forces and mercenaries. And by late 1329, according to the Brut chronicle and Annales Paulini, rumours that Edward II was alive were widespread; "All the commons of England were in sorrow and in dread whether it were so or not".

Hmmm very interesting. The fact that the Parliament didn't mention Ed was dead and the sentence sounds as if Kent was on the verge of releasing a live prisoner is odd. The term "rescuing" seems a strange choice of words when referring to somebody who had supposedly died (with no foul play).

Is there somewhere I could see the text of Kent's letter or is there just that extract available? Shame those Parliamentary records are missing.

For a conspirator Kent was probably a touch too trusting passing on a note like that to John Deveril. I must have been watching too many Elizabeth I films (there were only about 5 last year) as it makes me think of Mary Queen of Scots being lured into writing letters that would seal her doom. It must be the cynic in my making me think of Mortimer's secret meetings with Deveril where they discuss how Kent believes everything and it's just a matter of time until they have evidence. The position and later arrest of Pecche points to Edward being held at Corfe though and is doing a very good job of fighting my inner cynic.

Paul: Kent's letter is quoted in Ian Mortimer's Perfect King and Greatest Traitor. I haven't seen it online, but that may be because I haven't actually looked for it. When I get round to writing a blog post on this, I'll quote it (there's not much more than I posted above, though).

I don't think it's at all coincidental that the records of the Parliament of March 1330 have disappeared, or that there's no ref to them in the Parl of 8 months later...The Brut chronicle, which is very detailed about the proceedings of March 1330, is probably based on a newsletter written by an eyewitness.

The wording of Kent's sentence is very odd, isn't it? It doesn't say something like 'you believed that the former king, now dead, was held in Corfe...'

Glad to hear I've reached your inner cynic!

For those interested in manuscripts, you can find photocopies of the Brut Chronicle here:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?type=boolean;rgn1=ic_all;med=1;view=thumbnail;c=brut;q1=brut;back=back1193777531;size=20;start=1

And no, Paul, I don't believe that Kent was set up. The men accused for this during the 1330 trial (apart from Roger Mortimer) were Maltravers, Deveril and Bayouse. Maltravers fled the country, but a few years later he became Edward III's agent in Flanders and was even allowed to return to England. He was acquitted in 1352. The other two dissapeared, but were definitely not executed. John Pecche, who was involved (and who presumably was Kent's informant) wasn't even indicted. Besides, why would Roger Mortimer have spread such dangerous news only to deal with one man?

Pecche died in about 1339. Deveril was thought to be hiding in Dorset or Somerset in the summer of 1331, and Bayouse just disappeared.

The guides at Berkeley Castle were stating as a fact that Edward II was murdered there when we visited in September. The owners have now agreed that they should mention 'Mortimer's theory' after I referred them to The Greatest Traitor and The Perfect King, but it would be useful if there were other authorities. I have referred them to this blog, of course.

Thank you, Eric - I appreciate that!

I'm sure that Edward II's murder is a great 'selling point' for the castle, in much the same way that Castle Rising probably emphasises the 'fact' (untrue) that Isabella was locked up there and went mad.

Well done for mentioning the blog Eric! Alianore, I agree with you...the murder would be an excellent selling point on a tour. I should know, I have been a historical guide in The Rocks area of Sydney, a murder or ghost is the best kind of story to tell!

The wording of the charges against the Earl of Kent are certainly interesting, although if we don't have the original parliamentary records, I suppose it is possible that the chronicler was confused as to the precise wording.

Re Lord Berkeley's claim at his trial that he had never heard of Edward II's death, which features prominently in Ian Mortimer's arguments for Edward's survival, it does seem to me that we should consider the possibility that Edward III was feeling a bit guilty himself about his own (partial) responsibility for events, and may have been looking for a face-saving excuse not to prosecute anyone involved in his father's presumed death: he may not have felt he was in any position to cast stones about that issue.

I'm not sure we can assume that Edward III's decision to accept Lord Berkeley's defence means that the new king genuinely believed it.