Roger's Rapacity

elflady wrote:

Making fun of wives and lovers governing is childish. Well yes, governing works this way sometimes, you should know better, lol! Your prime minister's wife probably had no chance of doing it, let alone refuse it. Maybe it is you who should read more... More to the point about regencies, first example coming to my mind: Mazarin and Anna of Austria?


Wow, of all the points on my list, is this all you can come up with? All you can contest? That Despenser did fight at Bannockburn? So what? Did he distinguish himself? What is it you said... that he rode away with the king? Valiantly indeeed! But did he return as the count of Pembroke did? Was he among the ones to fight to the very end?

You're the one who called Despenser 'cheeky lover-boy' and shrieked hysterically 'So much for your evidence!', and you accuse ME of being childish? That seems to be your favourite insult - aimed at me and Edward II! At least I'm in good company, I suppose.

I could quote regencies back at you till the cows come home! No-one's ever said that they didn't exist, have they? The point, which you're ignoring, is that a regency council was elected in January 1327, and Isabella and Mortimer were not on it.

No, that's not all I can come up with. I thought your other points were too irrelevant to bother with. But if you like, I'll address them below. You still haven't posted any primary source evidence to support your 'argument'; neither have you explained why you choose to believe Ian Mortimer when he says things you like about Mortimer and Isabella, and choose not to when he says things you don't, having criticised me for believing historians when they talk about Mortimer's rapacity and not when they talk about Ed II's death.

Did Mortimer distinguish himself at Bannockburn? How do you know? It's not even certain that the Roger Mortimer who took Ed II's seal to him was 'your' Mortimer - it might have been his uncle of the same name. Did Mortimer distinguish himself against Edward Bruce in late 1315? Against Robert Bruce in 1327?

Despenser was one of the 500 (yes, 500) knights who accompanied Ed II from the field - protecting the king from capture was supremely important. So if you think this makes Despenser a coward for not fighting till the very end (which was only minutes after Ed left) then you must think the other 500 knights were cowards, too, including Henry Beaumont - who was an ally of your beloved Mortimer in 1325/26.

It amuses me enormously that you talk so approvingly of Mortimer's 'covering Ed's retreat' at Bannockburn, then sneer at Despenser for being one of Ed's bodyguards and basically doing exactly the same thing.

elflady wrote:

(1) And what did Philippe of France do with all the money he obtained from taxes, the Jews, the clergy etc? So far, I haven't heard it said it was outright stealing. Roger WAS the ruler of the country between 1327-1330, whether anybody likes it or not and as such, he could dispose of the resources. Just show me any other ruler not only of the 14th century, but during the Middle Ages in general who did not and I'm going to believe you. Just one!


Let's see:
(2) - it wasn't Roger who was a threat to his neighbours, thus causing war;
(3) - Roger fought loyally for years, defending the country's borders. What did Despenser do at the time by comparison?
(4) - Roger was one of the very few who held their ground and covered the king's retreat al Bannockburn;
(5) - Roger remained at the side of the king in the matter of Piers Gaveston; so did Despenser's father, but what about him?
(6) - There's always talk about Roger's "revenge". I've said it before and I'm going to say it again: max 8 people dead against how many during the previous regime? You've once said, Alianore, that we need not compare the number of deaths. Why not? It does say a lot, especially for such violent times.
(7) - It wasn't Roger who became a bandit (pardon, Alianore, a pirate) during his exile. We've already talked about it, and your reply was that it was because of the lack of money in Despenser's case. So I'm going to ask you again: lack of money justifies robbing and killing? And we are talking about robbery of the most common kind... We ARE discussing stealing, aren't we???
(8 - Roger did not extort people in the worst possible way. From the book I'm supposed to not have read, same chapter as before: "The bishop-elect of Rochester was not allowed livery of his temporalities until contrary to all justice and the custom of England, he had made the chamberlain a present of L10" etc. This is not only stealing, it's worse, it's petty theft.
And the list could probably continue...

Another thing, Alianore and Lady D: when you make accussations, YOU are the ones supposed to prove them right and not the other way round. So far, you've only made a list with what modern historians say (historians who, sadly, can sometimes be mistaken - thanks Lady D, for admitting it). So how about that text of the law?

(1) For the 12,534,434th time, Philippe IV was the king of France, born to his position, with the right to dispose of his country's resources. Mortimer was NOT the rightful ruler of England.

(2) True. He just treated his tenants so appallingly they begged Ed II to execute him in 1322, and went on a rampage, destroying the homes and livelihoods of thousands of people.

(3) He was so insignificant before 1317 that no-one much cared what he was doing or not. As his father was alive (unlike Mortimer's) he had few lands, and therefore no political influence, until he and his wife received their share of her brother's lands.

(4) See above. Don't see the relevance of this point to Mortimer's behaviour from 1327 to 1330, however.

(5) True. Again, I don't see the relevance to his behaviour after 1327. I don't know what you mean about Despenser the Elder.

(6) 8 or so dead in 1326, against 24 or 25 men executed in 1322. Hardly a vast difference. If Ed II and Despenser had executed 1000 men, you'd have a point.

(7) My point about Despenser's lack of money as an excuse for becoming a pirate (I mean, bandit) was meant to be tongue in cheek, given that some historians have excused Isa's enormous greed from 1327 to 1330 as a perfectly justifiable reaction to having her income reduced for a few months in 1324/25.

(8 See above. After 1327, Isa confiscated books worth £10 that Ed II had given to his foundation of King's Hall, Cambridge, and never returned them. Also petty theft, no?

And again, no-one's ever denied that Despenser was greedy, tyrannical and stole lands and extorted money - so continually posting about his misdeeds as though it's new info that we haven't considered is a waste of time.

elflady wrote:

No, it's not the same thing. There was NO regency in Despenser's time. The fact that Roger could but would not accept an official position still remains. If Henry of Lancaster was head of the council, it it because Roger wanted/accepted him... Not even you can, in good faith and still pretending to be impartial, deny it.

Oops, just seen this bit...

Yes, I can and do deny it. Cite me the primary sources which state that Mortimer had an opportunity to hold an official position in government, and turned it down. **Primary sources**, please, not a random sentence from your handwritten notes. And do please explain, with reference again to primary sources and fourteenth-century law and custom, precisely why Henry of Lancaster - the premier nobleman in the country and legal guardian of Edward III after Edward II's deposition - needed the permission and approval of Mortimer - who was a mere baron, among many dozens of others, and whose pre-eminence was the result of being the queen's lover - to be head of the regency council.

Talking of primary sources, I can't help but notice that you haven't cited a single one yet in support of your 'argument' - which is, basically, 'Roger and Isabella were perfect and never did a thing wrong, and that's true because I said so!' Rather than engaging with any evidence, all you do is introduce totally irrelevant topics (Bannockburn? Ed II's death? Anne of Austria, for pity's sake???) and hurl insults and sarcasm.

Would you stop yelling at me? I'm not in the least impressed by such bullying methods. And calling for reinforcements will not help either. I haven't seen you quoting anything apart from the list at the beginning, for all your knowledge! I might be far from the bright centre of the Universe as implied, but you're doing no better. The minimum of decency, if not politeness, requires everywhere in the world for the one who makes the charges to sustain them. So where are YOUR quotes?

You know what would make me happy, Lady D? True impartiality, not a pretended one. You say you admit that Roger was a good soldier etc, but I haven't seen any of you declaring it freely. Chorus of the righteous also claims "we know Despenser was this and that", but I don't see any thread especially created here on the forum about it or about anyone else's faults. Only about Roger...

I confess I'm puzzled as to your presence here, Elflady. You have no interest in real debate, only in shouting at and insulting others, then calling it 'bullying' when it's turned on you. Why is it, exactly, that you come here and to my blog when so much of what I (and others) write makes you so furious? Why inflict it in yourself? 'True impartiality' will not make you happy; only a declaration that Mortimer was perfect in every way would do that. Why don't you start a blog and forum on him, so that you can write about his wonderfulness to your heart's content and don't have to read any opinions that disagree?

As Lady D said above, this thread has come to resemble flogging a dead horse.

I probably am way too late with this post - but things seem to have got very heated here.

Elflady - this is an Edward II forum - therefore Mortimer and Isa are not likely to be popular. Whatever Despencer did, he didn't depose Edward II. Whether Roger was a great soldier and supporter of the king early in his reign, the fact remains Roger had no right to depose him under the guise of Isabella's and England's saviour. IMO, his 'romance' with Isa was convenient and both proceeded to carry on where Ed and Despencer left off. Anyone in his position would have done that - they are all products of their time. Ed II was undoubtedly a failure as a king - but that doesn't mean people can't like him. Same with Mortimer - of course he did things that were wrong. His supporters will basically have to 'like it or lump it', as we say.

Might be incredibly simplistic what I'm saying - but I think it needs saying. It can be difficult to accept the faults of your favs in history - I sometimes take offence on their behalf LOL! - but accusing Mortimer of being greedy isn't really that bad, is it? I wouldn't have expected him to do anything else. My fav Gaveston foolishly didn't exploit his position enough. Not very nice of him to pocket Isa's jewellery etc, but I honestly couldn't imagine him NOT doing it.

As for Ed's death - surely you must be pleased that Alianore - and certain historians - absolve Mortimer of regicide? I have definitely changed my mind on this subject. The red hot poker story is too good a story not to be repeated and then accepted as fact. Also take out of the equation of using comparative history, or in my case, identifying the weaknesses of it, and it seems Ed did survive.

Wow...I haven't visited the forum for a while...Anejre is right. This thread had become very heated.

Elflady I am sorry that you do not like to hear 'bad' things about Mortimer from anyone on this forum. Alianore is correct when she suggests to you; NOT to read this forum as it is only likely to upset you.

Previously you have asked great questions and inspired excellent debate, but unfortunately this time you seem to have reacted very strongly to others who have also provided excellent debate, and despite what you think, they do clarify their sources.

Why don't you give Alianore a break? She is not trying to rubbish Mortimer, I am sure that is not her agenda. Differences of opinion are wonderful. Don't take the fact that some disagree with you so personally.