Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
David Webb
Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28 but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28 but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
In message of 5 Oct, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
This newsgroup is not about people's thoughts. It is about the
evidence that can be found for genealogical statements and the
inferences thereforom. To me it is quite remarkable how the relentless
and gentle pressure by some, that evidence is mandatory, has led to ever
more valuable contributions as the years pass.
Perhaps the newsgroup soc.history.medieval will give you better value.
But please don't cross-post as it only leads to a load of irrelevant
contributions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28 but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
This newsgroup is not about people's thoughts. It is about the
evidence that can be found for genealogical statements and the
inferences thereforom. To me it is quite remarkable how the relentless
and gentle pressure by some, that evidence is mandatory, has led to ever
more valuable contributions as the years pass.
Perhaps the newsgroup soc.history.medieval will give you better value.
But please don't cross-post as it only leads to a load of irrelevant
contributions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Mr Lybbe, that is an irrelevant and impudent reply. I have decided to post
here, not in some other newsgroup. The statement that Edward II died in 1341
is a genealogical statement, as genealogists are interested in dates of
birth, marriage and death. And if you think there is no evidence for this
statement in the book - you have not read it!
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:e3ac0af94c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
here, not in some other newsgroup. The statement that Edward II died in 1341
is a genealogical statement, as genealogists are interested in dates of
birth, marriage and death. And if you think there is no evidence for this
statement in the book - you have not read it!
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:e3ac0af94c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 5 Oct, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl
of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28
but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
This newsgroup is not about people's thoughts. It is about the
evidence that can be found for genealogical statements and the
inferences thereforom. To me it is quite remarkable how the relentless
and gentle pressure by some, that evidence is mandatory, has led to ever
more valuable contributions as the years pass.
Perhaps the newsgroup soc.history.medieval will give you better value.
But please don't cross-post as it only leads to a load of irrelevant
contributions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I have received this moronic posting from a twit called John Parsons, and
rather than reply to him personally, I thought I would share it with the
group instead. You have to scroll down a long way to find my comments.
OK. What is the evidence that Edward II died from a red-hot poker? If you
can't answer that
question, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails. The book makes quite
clear that the earliest
chroniclers in the south of England, nearer to the action, had Edward II
suffocated to death. Later
chroniclers in the north of England had him skewered on a poker. The latter
story grew in the telling.
But if you examine all the chronicles and look at the place of writing, date
of writing, you see that
suffocation is the earlier rumour.
Another moronic point by someone who has not read the book. Edward II's
body was not exposed to
public view. The body, whosever it was, was eviscerated and embalmed and
covered with a cerecloth in
line with mediaeval custom. No one could see whose body was below the cloth.
His face was not on view
and neither was any other part of his body. The "public viewing" of the
cerecloth-covered corpse only
began a month after the supposed murder. If you don't know these points, you
shouldn't be sending me
stupid emails, you moron.
The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the nobles
had begun to spread that Edward
II was still alive. If Edward II was still alive, Edward III, Mortimer and
Queen Isabella would all be traitors, so they
killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up. Mortimer before he was
hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had
been wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley - whose message to the court that
Edward II was dead prompted the mock
funeral - said in his trial that as far as he knew Edward II was still
alive. If you don't know any of this, you shouldn't be sending me
moronic emails.
Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and so
was quite possibly buried with the real heart. If
you don't know that Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't be sending
me stupid emails. You have ignored all the evidence
raised by Ian Mortimer in his book of the survival of Edward II. This means
you have not read the book.
rather than reply to him personally, I thought I would share it with the
group instead. You have to scroll down a long way to find my comments.
David,
This legend surfaces from time to time along with those of many celebrities
over the centuries who met sudden & violent ends but were subsequently
"resurrected" in popular legend.
Elvis is a recent example; in my lifetime, JFK has been described as alive
but severely handicapped from his wounds, living in a secret nursing home
near Dallas (of all places!); at one time or another in the 20th century
all
5 of Nicholas II's children--not only Anastasia--were "identified"
wandering
in penniless exile; Louis XVI's son the Lost Dauphin was impersonated by an
American Indian half-breed in Pennsylvania (Mark Twain unmasked him--that's
why Twain included the "King" and the "Duke" in *Huck Finn*), while a
German
pretender named Naundorff, & his family, pestered the life out of Louis
XVI's daughter until she died in 1851 (that fraud has been nailed by DNA
tests which proved years ago that Naundorff was not a Bourbon); & so on and
on and on. Even more recently than Elvis, Diana and Dodi al-Fayed
legendarily survived the crash in Paris and were living in happy seclusion
on a South Pacific island.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian Byzantine Emperor, Henry of Flanders, was
impersonated years after he died in the East; there were longstanding
rumors
that the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was not dead; and the tragic
little
Maid of Norway, Queen of Scotland, was impersonated long after her death in
1290 by a woman who was eventually burned at the stake for her
presumptuousness.
The question why human nature doesn't want to accept that eminent people
can
die like the rest of us mortals, especially in any untoward fashion, is one
that requires a lot of investigation. Perhaps it never will be fully
answered b/c it lies so deep within our collective psyche. Possibly we just
find it too hard to deal with the shock of such a death and deal with it in
escapist ways.
No reputable academic historians currently accept the "evidence" that
Edward
II escaped Berkeley Castle. The rumors are the kind of stuff writers like
Thomas Costain delight in rehashing. Edward was killed at Berkeley, but the
tale that he was murdered by 15 men holding him down & someone shoving a
red-hot poker in a certain place is probably exaggerated, if it is true at
all. Just think of the last gridiron football game you saw: what does it
look like when just a few men pile on another player? With 15 men on top,
it would be a miracle if the guy with the poker got it in the right
orifice.
OK. What is the evidence that Edward II died from a red-hot poker? If you
can't answer that
question, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails. The book makes quite
clear that the earliest
chroniclers in the south of England, nearer to the action, had Edward II
suffocated to death. Later
chroniclers in the north of England had him skewered on a poker. The latter
story grew in the telling.
But if you examine all the chronicles and look at the place of writing, date
of writing, you see that
suffocation is the earlier rumour.
Edward's body was exposed to public view & nobody at the time insisted the
corpse on display was not the king's.
Another moronic point by someone who has not read the book. Edward II's
body was not exposed to
public view. The body, whosever it was, was eviscerated and embalmed and
covered with a cerecloth in
line with mediaeval custom. No one could see whose body was below the cloth.
His face was not on view
and neither was any other part of his body. The "public viewing" of the
cerecloth-covered corpse only
began a month after the supposed murder. If you don't know these points, you
shouldn't be sending me
stupid emails, you moron.
That Edward's half-brother was put to
death 3 years later, after he gullibly bought into the rumors that the king
was alive, argues strongly that the government knew perfectly well Edward
II
was dead. A member of the royal family, a king's son, would never have been
executed if Queen Isabella and Mortimer had any suspicions Edward II was
alive. The earl of Kent would not have been beheaded if the king was alive.
The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the nobles
had begun to spread that Edward
II was still alive. If Edward II was still alive, Edward III, Mortimer and
Queen Isabella would all be traitors, so they
killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up. Mortimer before he was
hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had
been wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley - whose message to the court that
Edward II was dead prompted the mock
funeral - said in his trial that as far as he knew Edward II was still
alive. If you don't know any of this, you shouldn't be sending me
moronic emails.
Likewise, Isabella's burial with her late husband's heart within her tomb
was an act of perpetual contrition that no medieval lady would have
undertaken in hypocrisy: if Isabella had not known Edward was dead, & if
she
had not felt her responsibility for his death, she would not have had his
heart buried with her. To argue that she did so merely to perpetuate the
fiction of his death is to misunderstand the faith of the Christian Middle
Ages.
John P.
Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and so
was quite possibly buried with the real heart. If
you don't know that Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't be sending
me stupid emails. You have ignored all the evidence
raised by Ian Mortimer in his book of the survival of Edward II. This means
you have not read the book.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Dear David,
I don't know who you are or what you are, but obviously you do not know who
John Parsons is------you would then have known that he speaks very much from
a point of knowledge. He has incredible detailed knowledge of that era,
enough to have published about it. To call him a twit and his message
moronic is showing that you cannot cope with the possibility that Ian
Mortimer and you could be wrong. You don't seem to have understood the gist
of his message. There is nothing moronic about pointing out that stories
denying someone's death have emerged before, it is a warning not to get
sucked in too easily.
The illegitimacy of Edward IV was "proven" and even the BBC made a TV
program about it, but how many people agree that because of the
"illegitimacy of Edward IV" we should not have a Queen Elizabeth II today?
Perhaps only an academic out on making his name through notoriety. Is this
the mould of Ian Mortimer?
I find your behaviour towards John Parsons offensive. You maintain that Ian
Mortimer's book makes it clear----and because Ian Mortimer says so it must
be so? Have you ever read Josephine Tey's book "Daughter of Time"? I
understand that for quite some time people accepted the premise of this book
but then the certainty returned to uncertainty.
Will the same happen to Ian Mortimer's book?
Do you really think that knowledge, or apparent knowledge and proof, have
been dormant for 667 years waiting to be exposed by Ian Mortimer? Under what
heading falls his book? Fact or fiction? I haven't read this book and I
doubt I ever will. If I have to choose, I'd rather take the word of John
Carmi Parsons than any quote of Ian Mortimer-----Ian Mortimer? Roger
Mortimer? Is there somewhere an axe to grind?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I don't know who you are or what you are, but obviously you do not know who
John Parsons is------you would then have known that he speaks very much from
a point of knowledge. He has incredible detailed knowledge of that era,
enough to have published about it. To call him a twit and his message
moronic is showing that you cannot cope with the possibility that Ian
Mortimer and you could be wrong. You don't seem to have understood the gist
of his message. There is nothing moronic about pointing out that stories
denying someone's death have emerged before, it is a warning not to get
sucked in too easily.
The illegitimacy of Edward IV was "proven" and even the BBC made a TV
program about it, but how many people agree that because of the
"illegitimacy of Edward IV" we should not have a Queen Elizabeth II today?
Perhaps only an academic out on making his name through notoriety. Is this
the mould of Ian Mortimer?
I find your behaviour towards John Parsons offensive. You maintain that Ian
Mortimer's book makes it clear----and because Ian Mortimer says so it must
be so? Have you ever read Josephine Tey's book "Daughter of Time"? I
understand that for quite some time people accepted the premise of this book
but then the certainty returned to uncertainty.
Will the same happen to Ian Mortimer's book?
Do you really think that knowledge, or apparent knowledge and proof, have
been dormant for 667 years waiting to be exposed by Ian Mortimer? Under what
heading falls his book? Fact or fiction? I haven't read this book and I
doubt I ever will. If I have to choose, I'd rather take the word of John
Carmi Parsons than any quote of Ian Mortimer-----Ian Mortimer? Roger
Mortimer? Is there somewhere an axe to grind?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I have received this moronic posting from a twit called John Parsons, and
rather than reply to him personally, I thought I would share it with the
group instead. You have to scroll down a long way to find my comments.
David,
This legend surfaces from time to time along with those of many
celebrities
over the centuries who met sudden & violent ends but were subsequently
"resurrected" in popular legend.
Elvis is a recent example; in my lifetime, JFK has been described as
alive
but severely handicapped from his wounds, living in a secret nursing home
near Dallas (of all places!); at one time or another in the 20th century
all
5 of Nicholas II's children--not only Anastasia--were "identified"
wandering
in penniless exile; Louis XVI's son the Lost Dauphin was impersonated by
an
American Indian half-breed in Pennsylvania (Mark Twain unmasked
him--that's
why Twain included the "King" and the "Duke" in *Huck Finn*), while a
German
pretender named Naundorff, & his family, pestered the life out of Louis
XVI's daughter until she died in 1851 (that fraud has been nailed by DNA
tests which proved years ago that Naundorff was not a Bourbon); & so on
and
on and on. Even more recently than Elvis, Diana and Dodi al-Fayed
legendarily survived the crash in Paris and were living in happy
seclusion
on a South Pacific island.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian Byzantine Emperor, Henry of Flanders,
was
impersonated years after he died in the East; there were longstanding
rumors
that the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was not dead; and the tragic
little
Maid of Norway, Queen of Scotland, was impersonated long after her death
in
1290 by a woman who was eventually burned at the stake for her
presumptuousness.
The question why human nature doesn't want to accept that eminent people
can
die like the rest of us mortals, especially in any untoward fashion, is
one
that requires a lot of investigation. Perhaps it never will be fully
answered b/c it lies so deep within our collective psyche. Possibly we
just
find it too hard to deal with the shock of such a death and deal with it
in
escapist ways.
No reputable academic historians currently accept the "evidence" that
Edward
II escaped Berkeley Castle. The rumors are the kind of stuff writers like
Thomas Costain delight in rehashing. Edward was killed at Berkeley, but
the
tale that he was murdered by 15 men holding him down & someone shoving a
red-hot poker in a certain place is probably exaggerated, if it is true
at
all. Just think of the last gridiron football game you saw: what does it
look like when just a few men pile on another player? With 15 men on top,
it would be a miracle if the guy with the poker got it in the right
orifice.
OK. What is the evidence that Edward II died from a red-hot poker? If you
can't answer that
question, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails. The book makes quite
clear that the earliest
chroniclers in the south of England, nearer to the action, had Edward II
suffocated to death. Later
chroniclers in the north of England had him skewered on a poker. The
latter
story grew in the telling.
But if you examine all the chronicles and look at the place of writing,
date
of writing, you see that
suffocation is the earlier rumour.
Edward's body was exposed to public view & nobody at the time insisted
the
corpse on display was not the king's.
Another moronic point by someone who has not read the book. Edward II's
body was not exposed to
public view. The body, whosever it was, was eviscerated and embalmed and
covered with a cerecloth in
line with mediaeval custom. No one could see whose body was below the
cloth.
His face was not on view
and neither was any other part of his body. The "public viewing" of the
cerecloth-covered corpse only
began a month after the supposed murder. If you don't know these points,
you
shouldn't be sending me
stupid emails, you moron.
That Edward's half-brother was put to
death 3 years later, after he gullibly bought into the rumors that the
king
was alive, argues strongly that the government knew perfectly well Edward
II
was dead. A member of the royal family, a king's son, would never have
been
executed if Queen Isabella and Mortimer had any suspicions Edward II was
alive. The earl of Kent would not have been beheaded if the king was
alive.
The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the nobles
had begun to spread that Edward
II was still alive. If Edward II was still alive, Edward III, Mortimer and
Queen Isabella would all be traitors, so they
killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up. Mortimer before he was
hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had
been wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley - whose message to the court that
Edward II was dead prompted the mock
funeral - said in his trial that as far as he knew Edward II was still
alive. If you don't know any of this, you shouldn't be sending me
moronic emails.
Likewise, Isabella's burial with her late husband's heart within her tomb
was an act of perpetual contrition that no medieval lady would have
undertaken in hypocrisy: if Isabella had not known Edward was dead, & if
she
had not felt her responsibility for his death, she would not have had his
heart buried with her. To argue that she did so merely to perpetuate the
fiction of his death is to misunderstand the faith of the Christian
Middle
Ages.
John P.
Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and so
was quite possibly buried with the real heart. If
you don't know that Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't be
sending
me stupid emails. You have ignored all the evidence
raised by Ian Mortimer in his book of the survival of Edward II. This
means
you have not read the book.
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Thank you for your reply. I hate to say it, Mr van de Pas, but this is a
truly stupid email. See comments below.
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002301c4aade$81c5c4e0$c3b4fea9@email...
Mr Parsons' objections to Ian Mortimer's theory revealed a complete lack of
knowledge of the basis of the claims in the book. It is twittish to reject
what you do not know. As I went point by point through Mr Parsons' email, I
was able to show each point to be baseless. If he is such a scholar, he
should have produced a better refutation, one that actually engaged with at
least one point made in the book. Mr Parsons' email was an irrelevance to
anyone who had read the book. Now, Ian Mortimer may be wrong - quite true -
but we cannot determine whether he is right or wrong unless anyone discusses
the evidence actually in the book, not Mr Parsons' guess of what might have
been in the book.
Who cares?
You maintain that Ian
Quite possibly - especially once the points actually made in the book are
refuted. Mr Parsons has not done that!
Ian Mortimer states that he is not related to Roger Mortimer. Oops, I have
just revealed something you would only know by reading the book. As you will
never read the book, you are unqualified to comment. DJW.
truly stupid email. See comments below.
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002301c4aade$81c5c4e0$c3b4fea9@email...
Dear David,
I don't know who you are or what you are, but obviously you do not know
who
John Parsons is------you would then have known that he speaks very much
from
a point of knowledge. He has incredible detailed knowledge of that era,
enough to have published about it. To call him a twit and his message
moronic is showing that you cannot cope with the possibility that Ian
Mortimer and you could be wrong. You don't seem to have understood the
gist
of his message. There is nothing moronic about pointing out that stories
denying someone's death have emerged before, it is a warning not to get
sucked in too easily.
Mr Parsons' objections to Ian Mortimer's theory revealed a complete lack of
knowledge of the basis of the claims in the book. It is twittish to reject
what you do not know. As I went point by point through Mr Parsons' email, I
was able to show each point to be baseless. If he is such a scholar, he
should have produced a better refutation, one that actually engaged with at
least one point made in the book. Mr Parsons' email was an irrelevance to
anyone who had read the book. Now, Ian Mortimer may be wrong - quite true -
but we cannot determine whether he is right or wrong unless anyone discusses
the evidence actually in the book, not Mr Parsons' guess of what might have
been in the book.
The illegitimacy of Edward IV was "proven" and even the BBC made a TV
program about it, but how many people agree that because of the
"illegitimacy of Edward IV" we should not have a Queen Elizabeth II today?
Perhaps only an academic out on making his name through notoriety. Is this
the mould of Ian Mortimer?
I find your behaviour towards John Parsons offensive.
Who cares?
You maintain that Ian
Mortimer's book makes it clear----and because Ian Mortimer says so it must
be so? Have you ever read Josephine Tey's book "Daughter of Time"? I
understand that for quite some time people accepted the premise of this
book
but then the certainty returned to uncertainty.
Will the same happen to Ian Mortimer's book?
Quite possibly - especially once the points actually made in the book are
refuted. Mr Parsons has not done that!
Do you really think that knowledge, or apparent knowledge and proof, have
been dormant for 667 years waiting to be exposed by Ian Mortimer? Under
what
heading falls his book? Fact or fiction? I haven't read this book and I
doubt I ever will. If I have to choose, I'd rather take the word of John
Carmi Parsons than any quote of Ian Mortimer-----Ian Mortimer? Roger
Mortimer? Is there somewhere an axe to grind?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Ian Mortimer states that he is not related to Roger Mortimer. Oops, I have
just revealed something you would only know by reading the book. As you will
never read the book, you are unqualified to comment. DJW.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I have received this moronic posting from a twit called John Parsons,
and
rather than reply to him personally, I thought I would share it with the
group instead. You have to scroll down a long way to find my comments.
David,
This legend surfaces from time to time along with those of many
celebrities
over the centuries who met sudden & violent ends but were subsequently
"resurrected" in popular legend.
Elvis is a recent example; in my lifetime, JFK has been described as
alive
but severely handicapped from his wounds, living in a secret nursing
home
near Dallas (of all places!); at one time or another in the 20th
century
all
5 of Nicholas II's children--not only Anastasia--were "identified"
wandering
in penniless exile; Louis XVI's son the Lost Dauphin was impersonated
by
an
American Indian half-breed in Pennsylvania (Mark Twain unmasked
him--that's
why Twain included the "King" and the "Duke" in *Huck Finn*), while a
German
pretender named Naundorff, & his family, pestered the life out of Louis
XVI's daughter until she died in 1851 (that fraud has been nailed by
DNA
tests which proved years ago that Naundorff was not a Bourbon); & so on
and
on and on. Even more recently than Elvis, Diana and Dodi al-Fayed
legendarily survived the crash in Paris and were living in happy
seclusion
on a South Pacific island.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian Byzantine Emperor, Henry of Flanders,
was
impersonated years after he died in the East; there were longstanding
rumors
that the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was not dead; and the tragic
little
Maid of Norway, Queen of Scotland, was impersonated long after her
death
in
1290 by a woman who was eventually burned at the stake for her
presumptuousness.
The question why human nature doesn't want to accept that eminent
people
can
die like the rest of us mortals, especially in any untoward fashion, is
one
that requires a lot of investigation. Perhaps it never will be fully
answered b/c it lies so deep within our collective psyche. Possibly we
just
find it too hard to deal with the shock of such a death and deal with
it
in
escapist ways.
No reputable academic historians currently accept the "evidence" that
Edward
II escaped Berkeley Castle. The rumors are the kind of stuff writers
like
Thomas Costain delight in rehashing. Edward was killed at Berkeley, but
the
tale that he was murdered by 15 men holding him down & someone shoving
a
red-hot poker in a certain place is probably exaggerated, if it is true
at
all. Just think of the last gridiron football game you saw: what does
it
look like when just a few men pile on another player? With 15 men on
top,
it would be a miracle if the guy with the poker got it in the right
orifice.
OK. What is the evidence that Edward II died from a red-hot poker? If
you
can't answer that
question, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails. The book makes
quite
clear that the earliest
chroniclers in the south of England, nearer to the action, had Edward II
suffocated to death. Later
chroniclers in the north of England had him skewered on a poker. The
latter
story grew in the telling.
But if you examine all the chronicles and look at the place of writing,
date
of writing, you see that
suffocation is the earlier rumour.
Edward's body was exposed to public view & nobody at the time insisted
the
corpse on display was not the king's.
Another moronic point by someone who has not read the book. Edward II's
body was not exposed to
public view. The body, whosever it was, was eviscerated and embalmed and
covered with a cerecloth in
line with mediaeval custom. No one could see whose body was below the
cloth.
His face was not on view
and neither was any other part of his body. The "public viewing" of the
cerecloth-covered corpse only
began a month after the supposed murder. If you don't know these points,
you
shouldn't be sending me
stupid emails, you moron.
That Edward's half-brother was put to
death 3 years later, after he gullibly bought into the rumors that the
king
was alive, argues strongly that the government knew perfectly well
Edward
II
was dead. A member of the royal family, a king's son, would never have
been
executed if Queen Isabella and Mortimer had any suspicions Edward II
was
alive. The earl of Kent would not have been beheaded if the king was
alive.
The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the
nobles
had begun to spread that Edward
II was still alive. If Edward II was still alive, Edward III, Mortimer
and
Queen Isabella would all be traitors, so they
killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up. Mortimer before he was
hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had
been wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley - whose message to the court that
Edward II was dead prompted the mock
funeral - said in his trial that as far as he knew Edward II was still
alive. If you don't know any of this, you shouldn't be sending me
moronic emails.
Likewise, Isabella's burial with her late husband's heart within her
tomb
was an act of perpetual contrition that no medieval lady would have
undertaken in hypocrisy: if Isabella had not known Edward was dead, &
if
she
had not felt her responsibility for his death, she would not have had
his
heart buried with her. To argue that she did so merely to perpetuate
the
fiction of his death is to misunderstand the faith of the Christian
Middle
Ages.
John P.
Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and
so
was quite possibly buried with the real heart. If
you don't know that Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't be
sending
me stupid emails. You have ignored all the evidence
raised by Ian Mortimer in his book of the survival of Edward II. This
means
you have not read the book.
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1096991951.30998.15.camel@localhost.localdomain...
I agree with you, that the Earl of Kent was only a threat for trying to
rescue Edward II if Edward II was alive! See John Parsons' garbled
alternative view in an email I posted elsewhere in this thread.
news:1096991951.30998.15.camel@localhost.localdomain...
I haven't read the book, but some people believed Edward II escaped from
Berkeley Castle. Edmund of Woodstock, Edward II's brother, was beheaded
in 1330 for believing it and trying to restore Edward II to the throne.
I'm not sure why he was seen as that much of a threat if Edward II was
dead already, but perhaps someone else here knows more.
I agree with you, that the Earl of Kent was only a threat for trying to
rescue Edward II if Edward II was alive! See John Parsons' garbled
alternative view in an email I posted elsewhere in this thread.
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I will later, maybe tomorrow..
"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1096998864.30998.25.camel@localhost.localdomain...
"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1096998864.30998.25.camel@localhost.localdomain...
Well, I wouldn't characterize his reply as "garbled." He is a very
knowledgeable person on this period of English history, and I for one,
am willing to learn from what he has to say. He has written a book on
Medieval Queens and also work on Agatha of Hungary, which was a
well-reasoned paper.
I know that a common mode in this group is to be very emotional, but it
doesn't get us very far to shout at each other.
What relation is Ian Mortimer to Roger Mortimer? Maybe you could
present the evidence that Ian uses for establishing Edward's escape from
Berkeley Castle, and that would give us something productive to chew
over.
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 09:03, David Webb wrote:
"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1096991951.30998.15.camel@localhost.localdomain...
I haven't read the book, but some people believed Edward II escaped
from
Berkeley Castle. Edmund of Woodstock, Edward II's brother, was
beheaded
in 1330 for believing it and trying to restore Edward II to the
throne.
I'm not sure why he was seen as that much of a threat if Edward II was
dead already, but perhaps someone else here knows more.
I agree with you, that the Earl of Kent was only a threat for trying to
rescue Edward II if Edward II was alive! See John Parsons' garbled
alternative view in an email I posted elsewhere in this thread.
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I haven't read the book, but some people believed Edward II escaped from
Berkeley Castle. Edmund of Woodstock, Edward II's brother, was beheaded
in 1330 for believing it and trying to restore Edward II to the throne.
I'm not sure why he was seen as that much of a threat if Edward II was
dead already, but perhaps someone else here knows more.
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 04:04, David Webb wrote:
Berkeley Castle. Edmund of Woodstock, Edward II's brother, was beheaded
in 1330 for believing it and trying to restore Edward II to the throne.
I'm not sure why he was seen as that much of a threat if Edward II was
dead already, but perhaps someone else here knows more.
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 04:04, David Webb wrote:
Mr Lybbe, that is an irrelevant and impudent reply. I have decided to post
here, not in some other newsgroup. The statement that Edward II died in 1341
is a genealogical statement, as genealogists are interested in dates of
birth, marriage and death. And if you think there is no evidence for this
statement in the book - you have not read it!
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:e3ac0af94c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 5 Oct, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl
of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28
but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
This newsgroup is not about people's thoughts. It is about the
evidence that can be found for genealogical statements and the
inferences thereforom. To me it is quite remarkable how the relentless
and gentle pressure by some, that evidence is mandatory, has led to ever
more valuable contributions as the years pass.
Perhaps the newsgroup soc.history.medieval will give you better value.
But please don't cross-post as it only leads to a load of irrelevant
contributions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Brad Verity
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:
I think it may be helpful for those who haven't read Ian Mortimer's
biography (I have and found it very good and well-researched), to know
the evidence Mortimer lays out that led him to his conclusion that
Edward II was not killed at Berkeley Castle in 1327.
The Official Story known from records: Edward III received news of his
father's death late at night on Wednesday 23 Sept. 1327 at Lincoln
thru messenger Thomas Gurney, who carried the message from Berkeley
Castle. It was announced publicly on the final day of Parliament,
Monday 28 Sept., that Edward II died of natural causes at Berkeley
Castle on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle (21 September). The
accounts submitted by Thomas de Berkeley and John Maltravers claimed
f5/day for their expenses guarding the living king from 3 April (the
day they received him) to 21 Sept., then the same rate for guarding
the dead king's body from 21 Sept. to 21 October, when they handed the
body over to the Abbot of St. Peter's, Gloucester (now Gloucester
Cathedral). On 22 Oct., royal clerk Hugh de Glanville was put in
charge of overseeing the carrying of the corpse from Berkeley Castle
to Gloucester. This was a public procession, with the Abbot, Thomas
de Berkeley, the mayor of Gloucester and townsfolk participating. On
19 December, the court (Edward III, Isabella, Roger Mortimer, etc.)
arrived at Gloucester to witness the interment, which took place the
following day.
Q)How did Roger Mortimer have the corpse of another man buried in
Gloucester in December 1327 and how did he convince those who viewed
it that it was the body of Edward II?
By the time Berkeley and Maltravers handed the corpse over to the
Abbot of Gloucester, it had been embalmed, completely covered in
cerecloth, placed inside one coffin of lead and another of wood. Even
if the coffins were opened, the cerecloth would have obscured the
face. Murimuth, the only chronicler in the West Country at the time,
states that those summoned to view the body only saw it superficially
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
The watchers attending the corpse overseen by Glanville did not begin
their period of watching until 20 October, a month after the supposed
death. Smyth, in his 'Lives of the Berkeleys', stated that Thomas
Gurney was given orders to keep the death a secret locally until 1
November. So the only ones to have seen the body before 20 October
were Berkeley, the woman who embalmed it and a royal serjeant-at-arms
named William Beaukaire, who watched over the corpse from 21 Sept.
until the burial ("videlicet xxj Septembris quo die Rex obijt usque xx
diem Decembris proximum sequentem").
Paul Doherty, author of _Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward
II_(New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), came to the same conclusion as
Ian Mortimer - that Edward II was not murdered at Berkeley Castle in
September 1327, and that a substitute corpse was buried at Gloucester.
He points out that Henry of Lancaster (Edward II's cousin and keeper,
until he was handed over to Berkeley and Maltravers) and Edmund, earl
of Kent (Edward II's brother) both later stated that they were not
allowed to see Edward once he was taken to Berkeley either before or
after his death.
My Own Thoughts
I agree with Ian Mortimer and Doherty - the evidence surrounding
Edward II's death and burial is very fishy. Something was certainly
being covered up. I'm not quite convinced it was that the body was
not Edward - there may have been a strong effort to distance folks
from closely observing the corpse so that evidence of a violent end
could not be observed.
Perhaps Mortimer and Isabella did not foresee that obscuring the
viewing of the corpse would lead later to belief that Edward survived.
They may have been intent on hiding any signs of violence, for
charges of their murdering the king would have been as damaging to
them politically as the sudden reappearance of an escaped Edward onto
the scene.
I think Edward NOT reappearing on the political scene is the strongest
evidence that he was murdered in 1327. Even before Roger Mortimer's
execution in 1330, there was family (Henry of Lancaster, Edmund of
Kent, sister Mary at Amesbury) whom he could have approached for
assistance. I have a hard time grasping the idea that he became a
wandering monk and allowed the deception of a false death and burial
to stand, especially after 1330.
Cheers, --------Brad
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28 but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
I think it may be helpful for those who haven't read Ian Mortimer's
biography (I have and found it very good and well-researched), to know
the evidence Mortimer lays out that led him to his conclusion that
Edward II was not killed at Berkeley Castle in 1327.
The Official Story known from records: Edward III received news of his
father's death late at night on Wednesday 23 Sept. 1327 at Lincoln
thru messenger Thomas Gurney, who carried the message from Berkeley
Castle. It was announced publicly on the final day of Parliament,
Monday 28 Sept., that Edward II died of natural causes at Berkeley
Castle on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle (21 September). The
accounts submitted by Thomas de Berkeley and John Maltravers claimed
f5/day for their expenses guarding the living king from 3 April (the
day they received him) to 21 Sept., then the same rate for guarding
the dead king's body from 21 Sept. to 21 October, when they handed the
body over to the Abbot of St. Peter's, Gloucester (now Gloucester
Cathedral). On 22 Oct., royal clerk Hugh de Glanville was put in
charge of overseeing the carrying of the corpse from Berkeley Castle
to Gloucester. This was a public procession, with the Abbot, Thomas
de Berkeley, the mayor of Gloucester and townsfolk participating. On
19 December, the court (Edward III, Isabella, Roger Mortimer, etc.)
arrived at Gloucester to witness the interment, which took place the
following day.
Q)How did Roger Mortimer have the corpse of another man buried in
Gloucester in December 1327 and how did he convince those who viewed
it that it was the body of Edward II?
By the time Berkeley and Maltravers handed the corpse over to the
Abbot of Gloucester, it had been embalmed, completely covered in
cerecloth, placed inside one coffin of lead and another of wood. Even
if the coffins were opened, the cerecloth would have obscured the
face. Murimuth, the only chronicler in the West Country at the time,
states that those summoned to view the body only saw it superficially
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
The watchers attending the corpse overseen by Glanville did not begin
their period of watching until 20 October, a month after the supposed
death. Smyth, in his 'Lives of the Berkeleys', stated that Thomas
Gurney was given orders to keep the death a secret locally until 1
November. So the only ones to have seen the body before 20 October
were Berkeley, the woman who embalmed it and a royal serjeant-at-arms
named William Beaukaire, who watched over the corpse from 21 Sept.
until the burial ("videlicet xxj Septembris quo die Rex obijt usque xx
diem Decembris proximum sequentem").
Paul Doherty, author of _Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward
II_(New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), came to the same conclusion as
Ian Mortimer - that Edward II was not murdered at Berkeley Castle in
September 1327, and that a substitute corpse was buried at Gloucester.
He points out that Henry of Lancaster (Edward II's cousin and keeper,
until he was handed over to Berkeley and Maltravers) and Edmund, earl
of Kent (Edward II's brother) both later stated that they were not
allowed to see Edward once he was taken to Berkeley either before or
after his death.
My Own Thoughts
I agree with Ian Mortimer and Doherty - the evidence surrounding
Edward II's death and burial is very fishy. Something was certainly
being covered up. I'm not quite convinced it was that the body was
not Edward - there may have been a strong effort to distance folks
from closely observing the corpse so that evidence of a violent end
could not be observed.
Perhaps Mortimer and Isabella did not foresee that obscuring the
viewing of the corpse would lead later to belief that Edward survived.
They may have been intent on hiding any signs of violence, for
charges of their murdering the king would have been as damaging to
them politically as the sudden reappearance of an escaped Edward onto
the scene.
I think Edward NOT reappearing on the political scene is the strongest
evidence that he was murdered in 1327. Even before Roger Mortimer's
execution in 1330, there was family (Henry of Lancaster, Edmund of
Kent, sister Mary at Amesbury) whom he could have approached for
assistance. I have a hard time grasping the idea that he became a
wandering monk and allowed the deception of a false death and burial
to stand, especially after 1330.
Cheers, --------Brad
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
That is not a full statement of Ian Mortimer's case. I'll post more
tomorrow, but there is for example the Fieschi letter etc.
"Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ed1b63.0410051055.3e51d750@posting.google.com...
tomorrow, but there is for example the Fieschi letter etc.
"Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ed1b63.0410051055.3e51d750@posting.google.com...
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl
of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28
but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
I think it may be helpful for those who haven't read Ian Mortimer's
biography (I have and found it very good and well-researched), to know
the evidence Mortimer lays out that led him to his conclusion that
Edward II was not killed at Berkeley Castle in 1327.
The Official Story known from records: Edward III received news of his
father's death late at night on Wednesday 23 Sept. 1327 at Lincoln
thru messenger Thomas Gurney, who carried the message from Berkeley
Castle. It was announced publicly on the final day of Parliament,
Monday 28 Sept., that Edward II died of natural causes at Berkeley
Castle on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle (21 September). The
accounts submitted by Thomas de Berkeley and John Maltravers claimed
f5/day for their expenses guarding the living king from 3 April (the
day they received him) to 21 Sept., then the same rate for guarding
the dead king's body from 21 Sept. to 21 October, when they handed the
body over to the Abbot of St. Peter's, Gloucester (now Gloucester
Cathedral). On 22 Oct., royal clerk Hugh de Glanville was put in
charge of overseeing the carrying of the corpse from Berkeley Castle
to Gloucester. This was a public procession, with the Abbot, Thomas
de Berkeley, the mayor of Gloucester and townsfolk participating. On
19 December, the court (Edward III, Isabella, Roger Mortimer, etc.)
arrived at Gloucester to witness the interment, which took place the
following day.
Q)How did Roger Mortimer have the corpse of another man buried in
Gloucester in December 1327 and how did he convince those who viewed
it that it was the body of Edward II?
By the time Berkeley and Maltravers handed the corpse over to the
Abbot of Gloucester, it had been embalmed, completely covered in
cerecloth, placed inside one coffin of lead and another of wood. Even
if the coffins were opened, the cerecloth would have obscured the
face. Murimuth, the only chronicler in the West Country at the time,
states that those summoned to view the body only saw it superficially
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
The watchers attending the corpse overseen by Glanville did not begin
their period of watching until 20 October, a month after the supposed
death. Smyth, in his 'Lives of the Berkeleys', stated that Thomas
Gurney was given orders to keep the death a secret locally until 1
November. So the only ones to have seen the body before 20 October
were Berkeley, the woman who embalmed it and a royal serjeant-at-arms
named William Beaukaire, who watched over the corpse from 21 Sept.
until the burial ("videlicet xxj Septembris quo die Rex obijt usque xx
diem Decembris proximum sequentem").
Paul Doherty, author of _Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward
II_(New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), came to the same conclusion as
Ian Mortimer - that Edward II was not murdered at Berkeley Castle in
September 1327, and that a substitute corpse was buried at Gloucester.
He points out that Henry of Lancaster (Edward II's cousin and keeper,
until he was handed over to Berkeley and Maltravers) and Edmund, earl
of Kent (Edward II's brother) both later stated that they were not
allowed to see Edward once he was taken to Berkeley either before or
after his death.
My Own Thoughts
I agree with Ian Mortimer and Doherty - the evidence surrounding
Edward II's death and burial is very fishy. Something was certainly
being covered up. I'm not quite convinced it was that the body was
not Edward - there may have been a strong effort to distance folks
from closely observing the corpse so that evidence of a violent end
could not be observed.
Perhaps Mortimer and Isabella did not foresee that obscuring the
viewing of the corpse would lead later to belief that Edward survived.
They may have been intent on hiding any signs of violence, for
charges of their murdering the king would have been as damaging to
them politically as the sudden reappearance of an escaped Edward onto
the scene.
I think Edward NOT reappearing on the political scene is the strongest
evidence that he was murdered in 1327. Even before Roger Mortimer's
execution in 1330, there was family (Henry of Lancaster, Edmund of
Kent, sister Mary at Amesbury) whom he could have approached for
assistance. I have a hard time grasping the idea that he became a
wandering monk and allowed the deception of a false death and burial
to stand, especially after 1330.
Cheers, --------Brad
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Well, I wouldn't characterize his reply as "garbled." He is a very
knowledgeable person on this period of English history, and I for one,
am willing to learn from what he has to say. He has written a book on
Medieval Queens and also work on Agatha of Hungary, which was a
well-reasoned paper.
I know that a common mode in this group is to be very emotional, but it
doesn't get us very far to shout at each other.
What relation is Ian Mortimer to Roger Mortimer? Maybe you could
present the evidence that Ian uses for establishing Edward's escape from
Berkeley Castle, and that would give us something productive to chew
over.
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 09:03, David Webb wrote:
knowledgeable person on this period of English history, and I for one,
am willing to learn from what he has to say. He has written a book on
Medieval Queens and also work on Agatha of Hungary, which was a
well-reasoned paper.
I know that a common mode in this group is to be very emotional, but it
doesn't get us very far to shout at each other.
What relation is Ian Mortimer to Roger Mortimer? Maybe you could
present the evidence that Ian uses for establishing Edward's escape from
Berkeley Castle, and that would give us something productive to chew
over.
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 09:03, David Webb wrote:
"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1096991951.30998.15.camel@localhost.localdomain...
I haven't read the book, but some people believed Edward II escaped from
Berkeley Castle. Edmund of Woodstock, Edward II's brother, was beheaded
in 1330 for believing it and trying to restore Edward II to the throne.
I'm not sure why he was seen as that much of a threat if Edward II was
dead already, but perhaps someone else here knows more.
I agree with you, that the Earl of Kent was only a threat for trying to
rescue Edward II if Edward II was alive! See John Parsons' garbled
alternative view in an email I posted elsewhere in this thread.
-
R. Battle
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, David Webb wrote:
I have not read the book, but according to Mr. Mortimer he did not base
his case on the Fieschi letter (see
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_6_53/ai_103124792>).
In addition, though again I did not read either book and am going on
hearsay (specifically from
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_5_53/ai_100879548>),
Doherty (who agreed that Edward II survived) thoroughly discredited the
Fieschi letter (though perhaps that had been done before?).
-Robert Battle
That is not a full statement of Ian Mortimer's case. I'll post more
tomorrow, but there is for example the Fieschi letter etc.
snip
I have not read the book, but according to Mr. Mortimer he did not base
his case on the Fieschi letter (see
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_6_53/ai_103124792>).
In addition, though again I did not read either book and am going on
hearsay (specifically from
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_5_53/ai_100879548>),
Doherty (who agreed that Edward II survived) thoroughly discredited the
Fieschi letter (though perhaps that had been done before?).
-Robert Battle
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Brad Verity wrote:
<snip>
This is important - and it does NOT mean that people saw the corpse
only in a cursory way, as we might understand "superficially" to mean in
English.
The meaning is "And it was permitted that a number of abbots, priors,
knights and burgesses from Bristol and Gloucester should be summoned in
order to view his corpse untouched, and inspect its outward appearance".
The adverb "superficialiter" is from "superficies", literally "belonging
to the surface". It can also mean "of the upper part", suggesting that
only the front of the recumbent corpse was to be inspected.
Using this odd form of words could suggest that rumours of damage to the
nether parts of Edward II were already current, and no-one was allowed
to investigate.
It cannot be read to mean that the very people locally who were most
likely to recognise Edward were not allowed to see his face - much less
that they could not be expected to know it from a brief glimpse in any
case, even if a different reading were accepted.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
Q)How did Roger Mortimer have the corpse of another man buried in
Gloucester in December 1327 and how did he convince those who viewed
it that it was the body of Edward II?
By the time Berkeley and Maltravers handed the corpse over to the
Abbot of Gloucester, it had been embalmed, completely covered in
cerecloth, placed inside one coffin of lead and another of wood. Even
if the coffins were opened, the cerecloth would have obscured the
face. Murimuth, the only chronicler in the West Country at the time,
states that those summoned to view the body only saw it superficially
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
This is important - and it does NOT mean that people saw the corpse
only in a cursory way, as we might understand "superficially" to mean in
English.
The meaning is "And it was permitted that a number of abbots, priors,
knights and burgesses from Bristol and Gloucester should be summoned in
order to view his corpse untouched, and inspect its outward appearance".
The adverb "superficialiter" is from "superficies", literally "belonging
to the surface". It can also mean "of the upper part", suggesting that
only the front of the recumbent corpse was to be inspected.
Using this odd form of words could suggest that rumours of damage to the
nether parts of Edward II were already current, and no-one was allowed
to investigate.
It cannot be read to mean that the very people locally who were most
likely to recognise Edward were not allowed to see his face - much less
that they could not be expected to know it from a brief glimpse in any
case, even if a different reading were accepted.
Peter Stewart
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
In article <8ed1b63.0410051055.3e51d750@posting.google.com>,
batruth@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote:
I, too, have read the book, and corresponded with Mr. Mortimer, whom I
have found to be cordial and level-headed, well aware of the costs (as
well, to be sure, of the benefits) of embarking on such a dramatic piece
of revision.
Without being persuaded that Mortimer's revision of Edward's end is
necessarily the correct one, I accept that he raises enough questions
with the conventional interpretation of the diffusion of the story,
etc., to warrant reconsideration. His thesis may ultimately not be
right, but it is NOT a fantasy of the level of some things with which it
has been compared (Elvis, Laurence Gardiner, etc.).
At any rate, Mortimer's book really is more about reconstructing the
character and career of Roger Mortimer--an achievement which should be
recognized for its value independent of any acceptance or rejection of
Ian M's theory of Edward's end.
Peter Stewart has made a specific point over the pitfalls of inexpert
translation of such things as 'superficialiter'. I do not have
Mortimer's book in front of me, and cannot say whether he falls into
this trap, but my memory of the way in which he builds (or rather breaks
down) the case for Edward's murder is that it does not merely rest on
ambiguous textual points like this.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
batruth@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote:
My Own Thoughts
I agree with Ian Mortimer and Doherty - the evidence surrounding
Edward II's death and burial is very fishy. Something was certainly
being covered up. I'm not quite convinced it was that the body was
not Edward - there may have been a strong effort to distance folks
from closely observing the corpse so that evidence of a violent end
could not be observed.
I, too, have read the book, and corresponded with Mr. Mortimer, whom I
have found to be cordial and level-headed, well aware of the costs (as
well, to be sure, of the benefits) of embarking on such a dramatic piece
of revision.
Without being persuaded that Mortimer's revision of Edward's end is
necessarily the correct one, I accept that he raises enough questions
with the conventional interpretation of the diffusion of the story,
etc., to warrant reconsideration. His thesis may ultimately not be
right, but it is NOT a fantasy of the level of some things with which it
has been compared (Elvis, Laurence Gardiner, etc.).
At any rate, Mortimer's book really is more about reconstructing the
character and career of Roger Mortimer--an achievement which should be
recognized for its value independent of any acceptance or rejection of
Ian M's theory of Edward's end.
Peter Stewart has made a specific point over the pitfalls of inexpert
translation of such things as 'superficialiter'. I do not have
Mortimer's book in front of me, and cannot say whether he falls into
this trap, but my memory of the way in which he builds (or rather breaks
down) the case for Edward's murder is that it does not merely rest on
ambiguous textual points like this.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Sally Laine
Re: Roger Mortimer & David Webb
Why do you have to be rude about two of the most knowledgeable and helpful
members of this group?
John C. Parsons and Leo van de Pas.
You lose all other people's interest in your arguments (whether sensible or
not) by your name calling and insults.
Perhaps you need to grow up.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
members of this group?
John C. Parsons and Leo van de Pas.
You lose all other people's interest in your arguments (whether sensible or
not) by your name calling and insults.
Perhaps you need to grow up.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I will later, maybe tomorrow..
"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1096998864.30998.25.camel@localhost.localdomain...
Well, I wouldn't characterize his reply as "garbled." He is a very
knowledgeable person on this period of English history, and I for one,
am willing to learn from what he has to say. He has written a book on
Medieval Queens and also work on Agatha of Hungary, which was a
well-reasoned paper.
I know that a common mode in this group is to be very emotional, but it
doesn't get us very far to shout at each other.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Comments interspersed:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Although I'm disinclined to read through someone else's private
correspondence when this is unduly made public, I did read the off-list
e-mail from John Parsons when he added remarks afterwards. It doesn't
seem to me that he was comparing Ian Mortimer's thesis to the general
nuttery around Elvis, but rather that he was making a reasonable point
about reluctance on the part of some contemporaries of Edward II to
accept that their unseen king was dead. This phenomenon was not at all
uncommon - most medieval kingdoms had at least one concealed king,
usually asleep in a cave or on an island waiting to reappear at the hour
of his people's direst need. And inevitably the need came but the king
didn't - Elvis had left the national building after all.
I don't have the book with me either, and can't recall the details of
the case, but I remember thinking that the idea was crudely worked out
and not a bit convincing.
My point about Adam of Murimuth's meaning should have been more fully
explained. Beyond the crucial adverb, note should be taken of the verbs
he used - these are subjunctive, not indicative. He quite deliberately
did NOT say that anyone had actually seen Edward II's dead body, but of
course this is clearly implied. What he said exactly was that permission
was given for the corpse to be viewed "superficialiter".
Now the abbot of St Peter's at Gloucester wasn't implicated in any
crime, but he would certainly have drawn suspicion on himself if he had
announced that his colleagues from other religious houses, as well as
knights and burgesses from the district, should get on their horses and
donkeys and ride over to his abbey for just a "superficial" (meaning a
cursory or unsatisfactory) look at the king's remains.
On the other hand, making known in the face of rumours that they could
see the surface appearance of the corpse, i.e. primarily the face which
was all that they could know the deceased from anyway, but that they
were not permitted to defile the body by further or (literally) deeper
inspection, would be quite natural in the circumstances.
Moreover, if the abbot had taken the opportunity for his own forensic
examination, he might well have thought discretion was the wiser course
for himself, and that sharing any a secret about the cause of death
could only devalue the information. A pious regard for the dear departed
would be enough to cover his decision, leaving him to exploit his
knowledge later in private if necessary.
Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <8ed1b63.0410051055.3e51d750@posting.google.com>,
batruth@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote:
My Own Thoughts
I agree with Ian Mortimer and Doherty - the evidence surrounding
Edward II's death and burial is very fishy. Something was certainly
being covered up. I'm not quite convinced it was that the body was
not Edward - there may have been a strong effort to distance folks
from closely observing the corpse so that evidence of a violent end
could not be observed.
I, too, have read the book, and corresponded with Mr. Mortimer, whom I
have found to be cordial and level-headed, well aware of the costs (as
well, to be sure, of the benefits) of embarking on such a dramatic piece
of revision.
Without being persuaded that Mortimer's revision of Edward's end is
necessarily the correct one, I accept that he raises enough questions
with the conventional interpretation of the diffusion of the story,
etc., to warrant reconsideration. His thesis may ultimately not be
right, but it is NOT a fantasy of the level of some things with which it
has been compared (Elvis, Laurence Gardiner, etc.).
Although I'm disinclined to read through someone else's private
correspondence when this is unduly made public, I did read the off-list
e-mail from John Parsons when he added remarks afterwards. It doesn't
seem to me that he was comparing Ian Mortimer's thesis to the general
nuttery around Elvis, but rather that he was making a reasonable point
about reluctance on the part of some contemporaries of Edward II to
accept that their unseen king was dead. This phenomenon was not at all
uncommon - most medieval kingdoms had at least one concealed king,
usually asleep in a cave or on an island waiting to reappear at the hour
of his people's direst need. And inevitably the need came but the king
didn't - Elvis had left the national building after all.
At any rate, Mortimer's book really is more about reconstructing the
character and career of Roger Mortimer--an achievement which should be
recognized for its value independent of any acceptance or rejection of
Ian M's theory of Edward's end.
Peter Stewart has made a specific point over the pitfalls of inexpert
translation of such things as 'superficialiter'. I do not have
Mortimer's book in front of me, and cannot say whether he falls into
this trap, but my memory of the way in which he builds (or rather breaks
down) the case for Edward's murder is that it does not merely rest on
ambiguous textual points like this.
I don't have the book with me either, and can't recall the details of
the case, but I remember thinking that the idea was crudely worked out
and not a bit convincing.
My point about Adam of Murimuth's meaning should have been more fully
explained. Beyond the crucial adverb, note should be taken of the verbs
he used - these are subjunctive, not indicative. He quite deliberately
did NOT say that anyone had actually seen Edward II's dead body, but of
course this is clearly implied. What he said exactly was that permission
was given for the corpse to be viewed "superficialiter".
Now the abbot of St Peter's at Gloucester wasn't implicated in any
crime, but he would certainly have drawn suspicion on himself if he had
announced that his colleagues from other religious houses, as well as
knights and burgesses from the district, should get on their horses and
donkeys and ride over to his abbey for just a "superficial" (meaning a
cursory or unsatisfactory) look at the king's remains.
On the other hand, making known in the face of rumours that they could
see the surface appearance of the corpse, i.e. primarily the face which
was all that they could know the deceased from anyway, but that they
were not permitted to defile the body by further or (literally) deeper
inspection, would be quite natural in the circumstances.
Moreover, if the abbot had taken the opportunity for his own forensic
examination, he might well have thought discretion was the wiser course
for himself, and that sharing any a secret about the cause of death
could only devalue the information. A pious regard for the dear departed
would be enough to cover his decision, leaving him to exploit his
knowledge later in private if necessary.
Peter Stewart
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer & David Webb
""Sally Laine"" <slaine@tbaytel.net> wrote in message
news:004f01c4ab31$0a14d0a0$c20ad3d8@c0d9c5...
That doesn't entitle either of them to send stupid messages. In the case of
Mr Parsons, to answer my initial question with all that rot about whether
Elvis was alive and Anastasia Romanoff was simply ridiculous, as for Mr van
de Pas, he showed in his interventions that he cannot think clearly and
logically. To say, as he has done in an email to me, that it is perfectly
legitimate not to believe in an argument that one has not read because one
does not have to read Bishop Ussher's work to deny that the earth was
created in 4000 BC is simply ridiculous. One may be a scientist and know for
a scientific fact that the earth is older than 6000 years, but one may not
know "for a fact" whether Edward II was murdered or not in 1327.
I don't suffer fools gladly. There is nothing wrong with that. Sally, you
clearly have nothing to say on the subject in hand. Neither did Mr Parsons
or Mr van de Pas...
news:004f01c4ab31$0a14d0a0$c20ad3d8@c0d9c5...
Why do you have to be rude about two of the most knowledgeable and helpful
members of this group?
John C. Parsons and Leo van de Pas.
That doesn't entitle either of them to send stupid messages. In the case of
Mr Parsons, to answer my initial question with all that rot about whether
Elvis was alive and Anastasia Romanoff was simply ridiculous, as for Mr van
de Pas, he showed in his interventions that he cannot think clearly and
logically. To say, as he has done in an email to me, that it is perfectly
legitimate not to believe in an argument that one has not read because one
does not have to read Bishop Ussher's work to deny that the earth was
created in 4000 BC is simply ridiculous. One may be a scientist and know for
a scientific fact that the earth is older than 6000 years, but one may not
know "for a fact" whether Edward II was murdered or not in 1327.
You lose all other people's interest in your arguments (whether sensible
or
not) by your name calling and insults.
Perhaps you need to grow up.
Sally
I don't suffer fools gladly. There is nothing wrong with that. Sally, you
clearly have nothing to say on the subject in hand. Neither did Mr Parsons
or Mr van de Pas...
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Brad, you haven't mentioned the William the Welshman incident. It wasn't
normal for royal imposters to be invited to stay with the royal family for
three weeks. No one has any comments on this.
normal for royal imposters to be invited to stay with the royal family for
three weeks. No one has any comments on this.
I have just finished reading this fascinating biography of the 1st Earl
of
March. I am quite convinced that Edward II was not murdered in 1327/28
but
survived until 1341. What do people think?
I think it may be helpful for those who haven't read Ian Mortimer's
biography (I have and found it very good and well-researched), to know
the evidence Mortimer lays out that led him to his conclusion that
Edward II was not killed at Berkeley Castle in 1327.
The Official Story known from records: Edward III received news of his
father's death late at night on Wednesday 23 Sept. 1327 at Lincoln
thru messenger Thomas Gurney, who carried the message from Berkeley
Castle. It was announced publicly on the final day of Parliament,
Monday 28 Sept., that Edward II died of natural causes at Berkeley
Castle on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle (21 September). The
accounts submitted by Thomas de Berkeley and John Maltravers claimed
f5/day for their expenses guarding the living king from 3 April (the
day they received him) to 21 Sept., then the same rate for guarding
the dead king's body from 21 Sept. to 21 October, when they handed the
body over to the Abbot of St. Peter's, Gloucester (now Gloucester
Cathedral). On 22 Oct., royal clerk Hugh de Glanville was put in
charge of overseeing the carrying of the corpse from Berkeley Castle
to Gloucester. This was a public procession, with the Abbot, Thomas
de Berkeley, the mayor of Gloucester and townsfolk participating. On
19 December, the court (Edward III, Isabella, Roger Mortimer, etc.)
arrived at Gloucester to witness the interment, which took place the
following day.
Q)How did Roger Mortimer have the corpse of another man buried in
Gloucester in December 1327 and how did he convince those who viewed
it that it was the body of Edward II?
By the time Berkeley and Maltravers handed the corpse over to the
Abbot of Gloucester, it had been embalmed, completely covered in
cerecloth, placed inside one coffin of lead and another of wood. Even
if the coffins were opened, the cerecloth would have obscured the
face. Murimuth, the only chronicler in the West Country at the time,
states that those summoned to view the body only saw it superficially
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
The watchers attending the corpse overseen by Glanville did not begin
their period of watching until 20 October, a month after the supposed
death. Smyth, in his 'Lives of the Berkeleys', stated that Thomas
Gurney was given orders to keep the death a secret locally until 1
November. So the only ones to have seen the body before 20 October
were Berkeley, the woman who embalmed it and a royal serjeant-at-arms
named William Beaukaire, who watched over the corpse from 21 Sept.
until the burial ("videlicet xxj Septembris quo die Rex obijt usque xx
diem Decembris proximum sequentem").
Paul Doherty, author of _Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward
II_(New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), came to the same conclusion as
Ian Mortimer - that Edward II was not murdered at Berkeley Castle in
September 1327, and that a substitute corpse was buried at Gloucester.
He points out that Henry of Lancaster (Edward II's cousin and keeper,
until he was handed over to Berkeley and Maltravers) and Edmund, earl
of Kent (Edward II's brother) both later stated that they were not
allowed to see Edward once he was taken to Berkeley either before or
after his death.
My Own Thoughts
I agree with Ian Mortimer and Doherty - the evidence surrounding
Edward II's death and burial is very fishy. Something was certainly
being covered up. I'm not quite convinced it was that the body was
not Edward - there may have been a strong effort to distance folks
from closely observing the corpse so that evidence of a violent end
could not be observed.
Perhaps Mortimer and Isabella did not foresee that obscuring the
viewing of the corpse would lead later to belief that Edward survived.
They may have been intent on hiding any signs of violence, for
charges of their murdering the king would have been as damaging to
them politically as the sudden reappearance of an escaped Edward onto
the scene.
I think Edward NOT reappearing on the political scene is the strongest
evidence that he was murdered in 1327. Even before Roger Mortimer's
execution in 1330, there was family (Henry of Lancaster, Edmund of
Kent, sister Mary at Amesbury) whom he could have approached for
assistance. I have a hard time grasping the idea that he became a
wandering monk and allowed the deception of a false death and burial
to stand, especially after 1330.
Cheers, --------Brad
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
He does use the Fieschi letter in his book to support his case. What he
means on those Internet sites is that his historiographical method is not to
rest his case on the Fieschi letter, but to ask, "why do we think Ed II was
murdered in the first place"? He ends up by concluding "because Lord
Berkeley said so in 1327". And yet at his trial, he said he thought Ed II
still alive...
"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61.0410051446390.72814@dante68.u.washington.edu...
means on those Internet sites is that his historiographical method is not to
rest his case on the Fieschi letter, but to ask, "why do we think Ed II was
murdered in the first place"? He ends up by concluding "because Lord
Berkeley said so in 1327". And yet at his trial, he said he thought Ed II
still alive...
"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61.0410051446390.72814@dante68.u.washington.edu...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, David Webb wrote:
That is not a full statement of Ian Mortimer's case. I'll post more
tomorrow, but there is for example the Fieschi letter etc.
snip
I have not read the book, but according to Mr. Mortimer he did not base
his case on the Fieschi letter (see
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _103124792>).
In addition, though again I did not read either book and am going on
hearsay (specifically from
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _100879548>),
Doherty (who agreed that Edward II survived) thoroughly discredited the
Fieschi letter (though perhaps that had been done before?).
-Robert Battle
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Although I'm disinclined to read through someone else's private
correspondence when this is unduly made public, I did read the off-list
e-mail from John Parsons when he added remarks afterwards. It doesn't
seem to me that he was comparing Ian Mortimer's thesis to the general
nuttery around Elvis, but rather that he was making a reasonable point
about reluctance on the part of some contemporaries of Edward II to
accept that their unseen king was dead.
Mr Parsons should not have replied off-list with an email that consisted of
a litany of Elvis/Anastasia/Fred II and other false claims. It was quite
wrong for him to make his ridiculous claims off list and they cast his
scholarship in a bad light. Mr Stewart, I think you have misinterpreted Mr
Parsons' letter - he was saying "this is just nuttery". It was the arrogance
of someone who viewed himself as an expert on the subject - but who on
closer examination knew less than he thought! As for "I'm disinclined to
read through...", get off your high horse!
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
David Webb wrote:
It's not a high horse - I have no business reading what John Parsons
wrote privately to someone else, and you had no business making it
available on SGM. Get up from your own intellectual gutter.
Peter Stewart
Although I'm disinclined to read through someone else's private
correspondence when this is unduly made public, I did read the off-list
e-mail from John Parsons when he added remarks afterwards. It doesn't
seem to me that he was comparing Ian Mortimer's thesis to the general
nuttery around Elvis, but rather that he was making a reasonable point
about reluctance on the part of some contemporaries of Edward II to
accept that their unseen king was dead.
Mr Parsons should not have replied off-list with an email that consisted of
a litany of Elvis/Anastasia/Fred II and other false claims. It was quite
wrong for him to make his ridiculous claims off list and they cast his
scholarship in a bad light. Mr Stewart, I think you have misinterpreted Mr
Parsons' letter - he was saying "this is just nuttery". It was the arrogance
of someone who viewed himself as an expert on the subject - but who on
closer examination knew less than he thought! As for "I'm disinclined to
read through...", get off your high horse!
It's not a high horse - I have no business reading what John Parsons
wrote privately to someone else, and you had no business making it
available on SGM. Get up from your own intellectual gutter.
Peter Stewart
-
Brad Verity
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:
Thanks for this, Peter. Doherty seems to have interpreted the Latin
with the modern 'superficial' meaning.
Doherty [p. 137]: "The corpse remained at Berkeley until 21 October.
[footnote: The three main (and virtually only) records for the royal
burial are: 'Murimouth', pp. 53-4; Smyth of Nibley, 'Lives of the
Berkeleys', pp. 293-4. S.A. Moore, 'Documents relating to the Burial
of Edward II' ('Arch.', Vol. Part 50.1, 1887) pp. 215-26 lists all the
items mentioned here including Glanville's account. This evidence
will be critically analysed later.] Lord Thomas Berkeley's rather
surprising declaration that he was ill at Bradley didn't stop him
submitting his accounts to the Exchequer for looking after the
imprisoned King. This showed him in the prime of health, supervising
the corpse until 21 October and, according to Murimouth, inviting
local citizens and churchmen up to Berkeley Castle so they could view
it. Murimouth, however, added that this public viewing was 'very
superficial and from afar off'. Apart from this very controlled
lying-in-state, where local visitors were allowed a quick glimpse,
only two other people were allowed near the dead King. The first was
William Beaukaire, who stayed 'juxta corpus regis', 'near the body of
the King', from 21 September until 20 December. This solitary
sergeant-at-arms was, apparently, the only guard of honour. The other
person was a 'certain woman' responsible for the corpse's embalmment."
In a later chapter, Doherty [p. 222]: "What happened in the previous
month? An old woman was hired to embalm the corpse for burial,
probably within a week of Edward II's supposed death. By 28 September
the corpse would have been ready for display in the small chapel of St
John at Berkeley Castle. The chronicler Adam of Murimouth, whose
testimony is fairly reliable, says: 'Berkeley invited leading notables
from the area to view the corpse but, this was done superficially, and
they stood far off.'" And, [pp. 224-225]: "A corpse, a look-alike,
was produced and taken secretly to Berkeley. Gurney and Ockle, under
Berkeley's supervision, kept it secret while a local 'wise woman'
prepared the corpse for burial: the hair, moustache and beard were
shaved, it was clothed in a shroud and open to a quick and superficial
view by local notables, hand-picked by Berkeley."
So Doherty clearly seems to have interpreted the passage in Murimouth
to mean that those who saw Edward's body at Berkeley Castle saw it
superficially and from a distance.
Ian Mortimer also seems to interpret 'superficially' as a limited form
of viewing. Mortimer [p. 245]: "Confirmation that it was necessary to
remove the cerecloth in order to recognise an embalmed corpse may be
found in the case of Richard II, for whom this was done specifically
so he could be recognised when being brought south from Pontefract in
1400. [footnote: W.H. St John Hope, 'On the Funeral Effigies of the
Kings and Queens of England', 'Archaeologia', 60 (1907), p. 533.]
There is no evidence that this removal of cloth happened with Edward
II. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary in the testimony of the
only chronicler in the West Country at the time, Murimuth, who stated
that those summoned to view the corpse only saw it 'superficially'."
In the footnote to the last statement, Mortimer provides the Latin
text from Murimuth presented in my previous post. He adds [p. 300 n.
4]: "There is no context to support Fryde's interpretation of the word
'superficialiter' as 'from a distance'. See [Natalie] Fryde, 'Tyranny
and Fall [of Edward II]', p. 203."
As both Doherty and Mortimer's cases for Edward not being murdered at
Berkeley Castle in 1327 rests on a substituted corpse that was not
properly viewed. And as their only evidence for the limited viewing
is the statement by Murimuth, incorrect interpretation of that passage
could jeopardize their arguments.
There is the later statements by Henry of Lancaster (who had not
agreed to the transfer of the custody of his cousin - Roger Mortimer
had Edward seized from Kenilworth) and Pope John XXII that close
family and friends of Edward had not seen the body (merely the coffin)
at the funeral. Doherty and Mortimer both argue that this further
shows the body was not really that of Edward, otherwise Isabella and
Roger Mortimer would have allowed the royal family and other magnates
to see it firsthand.
But - especially in view of Peter's translation of Murimuth - if the
body had been viewed by local officials and clerics at Berkeley Castle
well enough to identify it as Edward, Isabella and Mortimer's
reluctance to have the royal family and other powerful barons didn't
have to do with identification cover-up. Rather, the queen and her
paramour may not have wanted Lancaster, Kent and other nobles who were
growing very disenchanted with the regency, examining the body and
discovering signs of foul play.
I just don't think there's enough evidence about the body and burial
of Edward II to support the substitute corpse theory. Though the lack
of definitive evidence also means it cannot completely be ruled out,
either. There certainly seems enough evidence to point to something
about the death being covered-up in late 1327.
Cheers, --------Brad
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
This is important - and it does NOT mean that people saw the corpse
only in a cursory way, as we might understand "superficially" to mean in
English.
[snip]
It cannot be read to mean that the very people locally who were most
likely to recognise Edward were not allowed to see his face - much less
that they could not be expected to know it from a brief glimpse in any
case, even if a different reading were accepted.
Thanks for this, Peter. Doherty seems to have interpreted the Latin
with the modern 'superficial' meaning.
Doherty [p. 137]: "The corpse remained at Berkeley until 21 October.
[footnote: The three main (and virtually only) records for the royal
burial are: 'Murimouth', pp. 53-4; Smyth of Nibley, 'Lives of the
Berkeleys', pp. 293-4. S.A. Moore, 'Documents relating to the Burial
of Edward II' ('Arch.', Vol. Part 50.1, 1887) pp. 215-26 lists all the
items mentioned here including Glanville's account. This evidence
will be critically analysed later.] Lord Thomas Berkeley's rather
surprising declaration that he was ill at Bradley didn't stop him
submitting his accounts to the Exchequer for looking after the
imprisoned King. This showed him in the prime of health, supervising
the corpse until 21 October and, according to Murimouth, inviting
local citizens and churchmen up to Berkeley Castle so they could view
it. Murimouth, however, added that this public viewing was 'very
superficial and from afar off'. Apart from this very controlled
lying-in-state, where local visitors were allowed a quick glimpse,
only two other people were allowed near the dead King. The first was
William Beaukaire, who stayed 'juxta corpus regis', 'near the body of
the King', from 21 September until 20 December. This solitary
sergeant-at-arms was, apparently, the only guard of honour. The other
person was a 'certain woman' responsible for the corpse's embalmment."
In a later chapter, Doherty [p. 222]: "What happened in the previous
month? An old woman was hired to embalm the corpse for burial,
probably within a week of Edward II's supposed death. By 28 September
the corpse would have been ready for display in the small chapel of St
John at Berkeley Castle. The chronicler Adam of Murimouth, whose
testimony is fairly reliable, says: 'Berkeley invited leading notables
from the area to view the corpse but, this was done superficially, and
they stood far off.'" And, [pp. 224-225]: "A corpse, a look-alike,
was produced and taken secretly to Berkeley. Gurney and Ockle, under
Berkeley's supervision, kept it secret while a local 'wise woman'
prepared the corpse for burial: the hair, moustache and beard were
shaved, it was clothed in a shroud and open to a quick and superficial
view by local notables, hand-picked by Berkeley."
So Doherty clearly seems to have interpreted the passage in Murimouth
to mean that those who saw Edward's body at Berkeley Castle saw it
superficially and from a distance.
Ian Mortimer also seems to interpret 'superficially' as a limited form
of viewing. Mortimer [p. 245]: "Confirmation that it was necessary to
remove the cerecloth in order to recognise an embalmed corpse may be
found in the case of Richard II, for whom this was done specifically
so he could be recognised when being brought south from Pontefract in
1400. [footnote: W.H. St John Hope, 'On the Funeral Effigies of the
Kings and Queens of England', 'Archaeologia', 60 (1907), p. 533.]
There is no evidence that this removal of cloth happened with Edward
II. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary in the testimony of the
only chronicler in the West Country at the time, Murimuth, who stated
that those summoned to view the corpse only saw it 'superficially'."
In the footnote to the last statement, Mortimer provides the Latin
text from Murimuth presented in my previous post. He adds [p. 300 n.
4]: "There is no context to support Fryde's interpretation of the word
'superficialiter' as 'from a distance'. See [Natalie] Fryde, 'Tyranny
and Fall [of Edward II]', p. 203."
As both Doherty and Mortimer's cases for Edward not being murdered at
Berkeley Castle in 1327 rests on a substituted corpse that was not
properly viewed. And as their only evidence for the limited viewing
is the statement by Murimuth, incorrect interpretation of that passage
could jeopardize their arguments.
There is the later statements by Henry of Lancaster (who had not
agreed to the transfer of the custody of his cousin - Roger Mortimer
had Edward seized from Kenilworth) and Pope John XXII that close
family and friends of Edward had not seen the body (merely the coffin)
at the funeral. Doherty and Mortimer both argue that this further
shows the body was not really that of Edward, otherwise Isabella and
Roger Mortimer would have allowed the royal family and other magnates
to see it firsthand.
But - especially in view of Peter's translation of Murimuth - if the
body had been viewed by local officials and clerics at Berkeley Castle
well enough to identify it as Edward, Isabella and Mortimer's
reluctance to have the royal family and other powerful barons didn't
have to do with identification cover-up. Rather, the queen and her
paramour may not have wanted Lancaster, Kent and other nobles who were
growing very disenchanted with the regency, examining the body and
discovering signs of foul play.
I just don't think there's enough evidence about the body and burial
of Edward II to support the substitute corpse theory. Though the lack
of definitive evidence also means it cannot completely be ruled out,
either. There certainly seems enough evidence to point to something
about the death being covered-up in late 1327.
Cheers, --------Brad
-
Bronwen Edwards
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<gAz8d.215292$hZ3.212341@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
It may be useful, if you qualify, to consider attending college. At
the very least you may see academic discourse modeled for you,
something you clearly need. It is not useful to insult everyone who
takes a position contrary to your own. It is especially absurd when
you dismiss the attempts to educate you by people such as Parsons and
van de Pas. You must be very young and lacking in life experience to
act the way you do. Try to get it through your head that you can argue
any point you want and still remain a courteous gentleman. Someone who
disagrees with you or questions one of your statements is not
attacking you. When you react with name-calling and insults, you only
remind everyone that an empty bucket makes the loudest noise. Bronwen
Thank you for your reply. I hate to say it, Mr van de Pas, but this is a
truly stupid email. See comments below.
It may be useful, if you qualify, to consider attending college. At
the very least you may see academic discourse modeled for you,
something you clearly need. It is not useful to insult everyone who
takes a position contrary to your own. It is especially absurd when
you dismiss the attempts to educate you by people such as Parsons and
van de Pas. You must be very young and lacking in life experience to
act the way you do. Try to get it through your head that you can argue
any point you want and still remain a courteous gentleman. Someone who
disagrees with you or questions one of your statements is not
attacking you. When you react with name-calling and insults, you only
remind everyone that an empty bucket makes the loudest noise. Bronwen
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002301c4aade$81c5c4e0$c3b4fea9@email...
Dear David,
I don't know who you are or what you are, but obviously you do not know
who
John Parsons is------you would then have known that he speaks very much
from
a point of knowledge. He has incredible detailed knowledge of that era,
enough to have published about it. To call him a twit and his message
moronic is showing that you cannot cope with the possibility that Ian
Mortimer and you could be wrong. You don't seem to have understood the
gist
of his message. There is nothing moronic about pointing out that stories
denying someone's death have emerged before, it is a warning not to get
sucked in too easily.
Mr Parsons' objections to Ian Mortimer's theory revealed a complete lack of
knowledge of the basis of the claims in the book. It is twittish to reject
what you do not know. As I went point by point through Mr Parsons' email, I
was able to show each point to be baseless. If he is such a scholar, he
should have produced a better refutation, one that actually engaged with at
least one point made in the book. Mr Parsons' email was an irrelevance to
anyone who had read the book. Now, Ian Mortimer may be wrong - quite true -
but we cannot determine whether he is right or wrong unless anyone discusses
the evidence actually in the book, not Mr Parsons' guess of what might have
been in the book.
The illegitimacy of Edward IV was "proven" and even the BBC made a TV
program about it, but how many people agree that because of the
"illegitimacy of Edward IV" we should not have a Queen Elizabeth II today?
Perhaps only an academic out on making his name through notoriety. Is this
the mould of Ian Mortimer?
I find your behaviour towards John Parsons offensive.
Who cares?
You maintain that Ian
Mortimer's book makes it clear----and because Ian Mortimer says so it must
be so? Have you ever read Josephine Tey's book "Daughter of Time"? I
understand that for quite some time people accepted the premise of this
book
but then the certainty returned to uncertainty.
Will the same happen to Ian Mortimer's book?
Quite possibly - especially once the points actually made in the book are
refuted. Mr Parsons has not done that!
Do you really think that knowledge, or apparent knowledge and proof, have
been dormant for 667 years waiting to be exposed by Ian Mortimer? Under
what
heading falls his book? Fact or fiction? I haven't read this book and I
doubt I ever will. If I have to choose, I'd rather take the word of John
Carmi Parsons than any quote of Ian Mortimer-----Ian Mortimer? Roger
Mortimer? Is there somewhere an axe to grind?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Ian Mortimer states that he is not related to Roger Mortimer. Oops, I have
just revealed something you would only know by reading the book. As you will
never read the book, you are unqualified to comment. DJW.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I have received this moronic posting from a twit called John Parsons,
and
rather than reply to him personally, I thought I would share it with the
group instead. You have to scroll down a long way to find my comments.
David,
This legend surfaces from time to time along with those of many
celebrities
over the centuries who met sudden & violent ends but were subsequently
"resurrected" in popular legend.
Elvis is a recent example; in my lifetime, JFK has been described as
alive
but severely handicapped from his wounds, living in a secret nursing
home
near Dallas (of all places!); at one time or another in the 20th
century
all
5 of Nicholas II's children--not only Anastasia--were "identified"
wandering
in penniless exile; Louis XVI's son the Lost Dauphin was impersonated
by
an
American Indian half-breed in Pennsylvania (Mark Twain unmasked
him--that's
why Twain included the "King" and the "Duke" in *Huck Finn*), while a
German
pretender named Naundorff, & his family, pestered the life out of Louis
XVI's daughter until she died in 1851 (that fraud has been nailed by
DNA
tests which proved years ago that Naundorff was not a Bourbon); & so on
and
on and on. Even more recently than Elvis, Diana and Dodi al-Fayed
legendarily survived the crash in Paris and were living in happy
seclusion
on a South Pacific island.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian Byzantine Emperor, Henry of Flanders,
was
impersonated years after he died in the East; there were longstanding
rumors
that the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was not dead; and the tragic
little
Maid of Norway, Queen of Scotland, was impersonated long after her
death
in
1290 by a woman who was eventually burned at the stake for her
presumptuousness.
The question why human nature doesn't want to accept that eminent
people
can
die like the rest of us mortals, especially in any untoward fashion, is
one
that requires a lot of investigation. Perhaps it never will be fully
answered b/c it lies so deep within our collective psyche. Possibly we
just
find it too hard to deal with the shock of such a death and deal with
it
in
escapist ways.
No reputable academic historians currently accept the "evidence" that
Edward
II escaped Berkeley Castle. The rumors are the kind of stuff writers
like
Thomas Costain delight in rehashing. Edward was killed at Berkeley, but
the
tale that he was murdered by 15 men holding him down & someone shoving
a
red-hot poker in a certain place is probably exaggerated, if it is true
at
all. Just think of the last gridiron football game you saw: what does
it
look like when just a few men pile on another player? With 15 men on
top,
it would be a miracle if the guy with the poker got it in the right
orifice.
OK. What is the evidence that Edward II died from a red-hot poker? If
you
can't answer that
question, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails. The book makes
quite
clear that the earliest
chroniclers in the south of England, nearer to the action, had Edward II
suffocated to death. Later
chroniclers in the north of England had him skewered on a poker. The
latter
story grew in the telling.
But if you examine all the chronicles and look at the place of writing,
date
of writing, you see that
suffocation is the earlier rumour.
Edward's body was exposed to public view & nobody at the time insisted
the
corpse on display was not the king's.
Another moronic point by someone who has not read the book. Edward II's
body was not exposed to
public view. The body, whosever it was, was eviscerated and embalmed and
covered with a cerecloth in
line with mediaeval custom. No one could see whose body was below the
cloth.
His face was not on view
and neither was any other part of his body. The "public viewing" of the
cerecloth-covered corpse only
began a month after the supposed murder. If you don't know these points,
you
shouldn't be sending me
stupid emails, you moron.
That Edward's half-brother was put to
death 3 years later, after he gullibly bought into the rumors that the
king
was alive, argues strongly that the government knew perfectly well
Edward
II
was dead. A member of the royal family, a king's son, would never have
been
executed if Queen Isabella and Mortimer had any suspicions Edward II
was
alive. The earl of Kent would not have been beheaded if the king was
alive.
The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the
nobles
had begun to spread that Edward
II was still alive. If Edward II was still alive, Edward III, Mortimer
and
Queen Isabella would all be traitors, so they
killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up. Mortimer before he was
hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had
been wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley - whose message to the court that
Edward II was dead prompted the mock
funeral - said in his trial that as far as he knew Edward II was still
alive. If you don't know any of this, you shouldn't be sending me
moronic emails.
Likewise, Isabella's burial with her late husband's heart within her
tomb
was an act of perpetual contrition that no medieval lady would have
undertaken in hypocrisy: if Isabella had not known Edward was dead, &
if
she
had not felt her responsibility for his death, she would not have had
his
heart buried with her. To argue that she did so merely to perpetuate
the
fiction of his death is to misunderstand the faith of the Christian
Middle
Ages.
John P.
Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and
so
was quite possibly buried with the real heart. If
you don't know that Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't be
sending
me stupid emails. You have ignored all the evidence
raised by Ian Mortimer in his book of the survival of Edward II. This
means
you have not read the book.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
I wonder who in fact is sitting on a high horse..........and needs to come
of it.
You asked a public question and John Carmi Parsons has the choice to reply
in public or private----you asked for a reaction---you got it----how is
irrelevant. He started by saying "This legend surfaces from time to time" in
other words he knew what you were talking about. To call him a twit and his
opinion moronic-----perhaps you should question your motives for reacting
this way. If the story of Edward II not having been murdered was the only
one of its kind, then you might have reasons to wonder, but as it is nothing
new YOU should have stuck to points of fact, not starting to insult people.
You have chosen the word "nuttery" offense is not the way to support Ian
Mortimer's book, I believe you create only ill-will where people may have
been interested in listening.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
of it.
You asked a public question and John Carmi Parsons has the choice to reply
in public or private----you asked for a reaction---you got it----how is
irrelevant. He started by saying "This legend surfaces from time to time" in
other words he knew what you were talking about. To call him a twit and his
opinion moronic-----perhaps you should question your motives for reacting
this way. If the story of Edward II not having been murdered was the only
one of its kind, then you might have reasons to wonder, but as it is nothing
new YOU should have stuck to points of fact, not starting to insult people.
You have chosen the word "nuttery" offense is not the way to support Ian
Mortimer's book, I believe you create only ill-will where people may have
been interested in listening.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Although I'm disinclined to read through someone else's private
correspondence when this is unduly made public, I did read the off-list
e-mail from John Parsons when he added remarks afterwards. It doesn't
seem to me that he was comparing Ian Mortimer's thesis to the general
nuttery around Elvis, but rather that he was making a reasonable point
about reluctance on the part of some contemporaries of Edward II to
accept that their unseen king was dead.
Mr Parsons should not have replied off-list with an email that consisted
of
a litany of Elvis/Anastasia/Fred II and other false claims. It was quite
wrong for him to make his ridiculous claims off list and they cast his
scholarship in a bad light. Mr Stewart, I think you have misinterpreted Mr
Parsons' letter - he was saying "this is just nuttery". It was the
arrogance
of someone who viewed himself as an expert on the subject - but who on
closer examination knew less than he thought! As for "I'm disinclined to
read through...", get off your high horse!
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Comments interspersed:
Brad Verity wrote:
Doherty seems to be making it up as he goes along - we are certainly not
told by Adam Murimuth that this viewing of the corpse by various
notables took place at Berkeley castle, under the auspices or at the
invitaiton of Berkeley himself. The passage in question reads as follows:
Postea, X. kalendas Octobris, anno Domini etc. XXVII., fuit mortuus
Edwardus rex Angliae in castro de Berkeleye, in quo, ut praemittitur,
fuit carceri mancipatus seu detentus invitus. Et licet multi abbates,
priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et Gloucestria ad videndum
corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale superficialiter
conspexissent, dictum tamen fuit vulgariter quod per ordinationem
dominorum J[ohannis] Mautravers et T[homae] de Gorneye fuit per cautelam
occisus. Propter quod ipsi duo et quidam alii fugerunt.
trans: Then, on 21 September, AD [13]27, Edward king of England died in
Berkeley castle where, as word spread, he had been forsaken or at any
rate held against his will. And it was permitted that a number of
abbots, priors, knights and burgesses from Bristol and Gloucester should
be summoned in order to view his corpse untouched, and inspect its
outward appearance; however, it was commonly rumoured that by the
commission of lords John Mautravers and Thomas de Gournay he had been
discreetly murdered. Consequently, these two and several others fled.
['Continuatio chronicorum', edited by Edward Maunde Thompson, Rolls
Series 93 (London, 1889) pp. 53-54].
I fail to see any evidence suggesting that Berkeley invited his
neighbours to come and see the outcome of a reputed crime that had taken
place under his own roof, much less that he "hand-picked" the
spectators. The natural assumption must be that once the king's death
had been made public and his corpse had been handed over for burial at
St Peter's in Gloucester, the local worthies who would have seen him
alive were summoned to verify that he was now really dead.
Apart from the construction placed on "superficialiter", waxed fabric
would obviously have to be removed in order to ascertain that a human
corpse, rather than say a wooden or plaster dummy, was actually
underneath. The attending abbots, priors, knights and burgesses can't
all be taken for idiots who would stand well back and believe whatever
they were told by Berkeley, allegedly the host of traitors & murderers,
or by the abbot of St Peter's for that matter, assuming he had troubled
them to come in the first place for the purpose of making their own
observation.
John XXII was reigning when, according to the purported letter of Maunel
Fieschi to Edward III, the undead King Edward II reached Italy, and the
pope had him to stay for 15 days. As has been noted by historians
before, John was definitely not the man to keep silent about this.
Edward II is then supposed to have visited Paris, Brabant and Cologne,
all full of wagging tongues, before curiously settling as a hermit in
Lombardy.
This all smacks of deception, perhaps by the French or initiated by
Mortimer himself to flush out opponents. Whether or not Fieschi himself
was taken in, and indeed wrote the letter, we can't know for certain -
the text has only survived through being copied into the cartulary of
Maguelone compiled nearly forty years after the events related. There
would have been no shortage of people with motives to falsify such a
document. What needs more careful explaining is why such personages as
Edward II himself and Pope John XXII would have done nothing sensible,
self-interested or remotely honourable about the circumstances if true.
Peter Stewart
Brad Verity wrote:
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:
("Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et
Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale
superficialiter conspexissent...").
This is important - and it does NOT mean that people saw the corpse
only in a cursory way, as we might understand "superficially" to mean in
English.
[snip]
It cannot be read to mean that the very people locally who were most
likely to recognise Edward were not allowed to see his face - much less
that they could not be expected to know it from a brief glimpse in any
case, even if a different reading were accepted.
Thanks for this, Peter. Doherty seems to have interpreted the Latin
with the modern 'superficial' meaning.
Doherty [p. 137]: "The corpse remained at Berkeley until 21 October.
[footnote: The three main (and virtually only) records for the royal
burial are: 'Murimouth', pp. 53-4; Smyth of Nibley, 'Lives of the
Berkeleys', pp. 293-4. S.A. Moore, 'Documents relating to the Burial
of Edward II' ('Arch.', Vol. Part 50.1, 1887) pp. 215-26 lists all the
items mentioned here including Glanville's account. This evidence
will be critically analysed later.] Lord Thomas Berkeley's rather
surprising declaration that he was ill at Bradley didn't stop him
submitting his accounts to the Exchequer for looking after the
imprisoned King. This showed him in the prime of health, supervising
the corpse until 21 October and, according to Murimouth, inviting
local citizens and churchmen up to Berkeley Castle so they could view
it. Murimouth, however, added that this public viewing was 'very
superficial and from afar off'. Apart from this very controlled
lying-in-state, where local visitors were allowed a quick glimpse,
only two other people were allowed near the dead King. The first was
William Beaukaire, who stayed 'juxta corpus regis', 'near the body of
the King', from 21 September until 20 December. This solitary
sergeant-at-arms was, apparently, the only guard of honour. The other
person was a 'certain woman' responsible for the corpse's embalmment."
In a later chapter, Doherty [p. 222]: "What happened in the previous
month? An old woman was hired to embalm the corpse for burial,
probably within a week of Edward II's supposed death. By 28 September
the corpse would have been ready for display in the small chapel of St
John at Berkeley Castle. The chronicler Adam of Murimouth, whose
testimony is fairly reliable, says: 'Berkeley invited leading notables
from the area to view the corpse but, this was done superficially, and
they stood far off.'" And, [pp. 224-225]: "A corpse, a look-alike,
was produced and taken secretly to Berkeley. Gurney and Ockle, under
Berkeley's supervision, kept it secret while a local 'wise woman'
prepared the corpse for burial: the hair, moustache and beard were
shaved, it was clothed in a shroud and open to a quick and superficial
view by local notables, hand-picked by Berkeley."
So Doherty clearly seems to have interpreted the passage in Murimouth
to mean that those who saw Edward's body at Berkeley Castle saw it
superficially and from a distance.
Doherty seems to be making it up as he goes along - we are certainly not
told by Adam Murimuth that this viewing of the corpse by various
notables took place at Berkeley castle, under the auspices or at the
invitaiton of Berkeley himself. The passage in question reads as follows:
Postea, X. kalendas Octobris, anno Domini etc. XXVII., fuit mortuus
Edwardus rex Angliae in castro de Berkeleye, in quo, ut praemittitur,
fuit carceri mancipatus seu detentus invitus. Et licet multi abbates,
priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et Gloucestria ad videndum
corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale superficialiter
conspexissent, dictum tamen fuit vulgariter quod per ordinationem
dominorum J[ohannis] Mautravers et T[homae] de Gorneye fuit per cautelam
occisus. Propter quod ipsi duo et quidam alii fugerunt.
trans: Then, on 21 September, AD [13]27, Edward king of England died in
Berkeley castle where, as word spread, he had been forsaken or at any
rate held against his will. And it was permitted that a number of
abbots, priors, knights and burgesses from Bristol and Gloucester should
be summoned in order to view his corpse untouched, and inspect its
outward appearance; however, it was commonly rumoured that by the
commission of lords John Mautravers and Thomas de Gournay he had been
discreetly murdered. Consequently, these two and several others fled.
['Continuatio chronicorum', edited by Edward Maunde Thompson, Rolls
Series 93 (London, 1889) pp. 53-54].
I fail to see any evidence suggesting that Berkeley invited his
neighbours to come and see the outcome of a reputed crime that had taken
place under his own roof, much less that he "hand-picked" the
spectators. The natural assumption must be that once the king's death
had been made public and his corpse had been handed over for burial at
St Peter's in Gloucester, the local worthies who would have seen him
alive were summoned to verify that he was now really dead.
Ian Mortimer also seems to interpret 'superficially' as a limited form
of viewing. Mortimer [p. 245]: "Confirmation that it was necessary to
remove the cerecloth in order to recognise an embalmed corpse may be
found in the case of Richard II, for whom this was done specifically
so he could be recognised when being brought south from Pontefract in
1400. [footnote: W.H. St John Hope, 'On the Funeral Effigies of the
Kings and Queens of England', 'Archaeologia', 60 (1907), p. 533.]
There is no evidence that this removal of cloth happened with Edward
II. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary in the testimony of the
only chronicler in the West Country at the time, Murimuth, who stated
that those summoned to view the corpse only saw it 'superficially'."
Apart from the construction placed on "superficialiter", waxed fabric
would obviously have to be removed in order to ascertain that a human
corpse, rather than say a wooden or plaster dummy, was actually
underneath. The attending abbots, priors, knights and burgesses can't
all be taken for idiots who would stand well back and believe whatever
they were told by Berkeley, allegedly the host of traitors & murderers,
or by the abbot of St Peter's for that matter, assuming he had troubled
them to come in the first place for the purpose of making their own
observation.
In the footnote to the last statement, Mortimer provides the Latin
text from Murimuth presented in my previous post. He adds [p. 300 n.
4]: "There is no context to support Fryde's interpretation of the word
'superficialiter' as 'from a distance'. See [Natalie] Fryde, 'Tyranny
and Fall [of Edward II]', p. 203."
As both Doherty and Mortimer's cases for Edward not being murdered at
Berkeley Castle in 1327 rests on a substituted corpse that was not
properly viewed. And as their only evidence for the limited viewing
is the statement by Murimuth, incorrect interpretation of that passage
could jeopardize their arguments.
There is the later statements by Henry of Lancaster (who had not
agreed to the transfer of the custody of his cousin - Roger Mortimer
had Edward seized from Kenilworth) and Pope John XXII that close
family and friends of Edward had not seen the body (merely the coffin)
at the funeral. Doherty and Mortimer both argue that this further
shows the body was not really that of Edward, otherwise Isabella and
Roger Mortimer would have allowed the royal family and other magnates
to see it firsthand.
John XXII was reigning when, according to the purported letter of Maunel
Fieschi to Edward III, the undead King Edward II reached Italy, and the
pope had him to stay for 15 days. As has been noted by historians
before, John was definitely not the man to keep silent about this.
Edward II is then supposed to have visited Paris, Brabant and Cologne,
all full of wagging tongues, before curiously settling as a hermit in
Lombardy.
This all smacks of deception, perhaps by the French or initiated by
Mortimer himself to flush out opponents. Whether or not Fieschi himself
was taken in, and indeed wrote the letter, we can't know for certain -
the text has only survived through being copied into the cartulary of
Maguelone compiled nearly forty years after the events related. There
would have been no shortage of people with motives to falsify such a
document. What needs more careful explaining is why such personages as
Edward II himself and Pope John XXII would have done nothing sensible,
self-interested or remotely honourable about the circumstances if true.
Peter Stewart
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
David Webb wrote:
Lambert Simnel.
taf
Brad, you haven't mentioned the William the Welshman incident. It wasn't
normal for royal imposters to be invited to stay with the royal family for
three weeks. No one has any comments on this.
Lambert Simnel.
taf
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
It may be useful, if you qualify, to consider attending college.
Yup, I qualified for university and spent 6 years of my life at uni. I hope
you qualified on your SAT scores and were not just admitted to make up the
minority numbers...
At
the very least you may see academic discourse modeled for you,
something you clearly need. It is not useful to insult everyone who
takes a position contrary to your own. It is especially absurd when
you dismiss the attempts to educate you by people such as Parsons and
van de Pas. You must be very young and lacking in life experience to
act the way you do. Try to get it through your head that you can argue
any point you want and still remain a courteous gentleman. Someone who
disagrees with you or questions one of your statements is not
attacking you. When you react with name-calling and insults, you only
remind everyone that an empty bucket makes the loudest noise. Bronwen
-
David Webb
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:41640797.5010305@interfold.com...
Well, you seem to be agreeing that Edward III thought William the Welshman
was his father...
news:41640797.5010305@interfold.com...
David Webb wrote:
Brad, you haven't mentioned the William the Welshman incident. It
wasn't
normal for royal imposters to be invited to stay with the royal family
for
three weeks. No one has any comments on this.
Lambert Simnel.
taf
Well, you seem to be agreeing that Edward III thought William the Welshman
was his father...
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
David Webb wrote:
On what basis could you possibly conclude that? You presented an
argument based on what was "normal for royal impostors" - that they
would not have remained around the royal family. I provided a known
royal impostor, Lambert Simnel, who did exactly that. He spent the last
years of his life in the royal household - AFTER he was unmasked,
defeated, suppressed, etc. Perhaps you could provide statistics on what
was "normal for royal impostors". Exactly how many royal impostors are
documented in England, and what happened to them? Only two come
immediately to my mind. One, Perkin Warbeck, was executed. The other,
Lambert Simnel, was given a position in the royal kitchens. With an 'n'
of two, and they enjoying disparate fates, you can hardly conclude what
was 'normal', and even if there was a norm, Simnel shows that seemingly
unlikely fates were possible.
Not having read Mortimer's book, I have to ask, on what basis is said
welshman thought to have been Edward? Certainly there must be something
more than him staying with the royal retinue for a few weeks.
taf
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:41640797.5010305@interfold.com...
David Webb wrote:
Brad, you haven't mentioned the William the Welshman incident. It
wasn't
normal for royal imposters to be invited to stay with the royal family
for
three weeks. No one has any comments on this.
Lambert Simnel.
taf
Well, you seem to be agreeing that Edward III thought William the Welshman
was his father...
On what basis could you possibly conclude that? You presented an
argument based on what was "normal for royal impostors" - that they
would not have remained around the royal family. I provided a known
royal impostor, Lambert Simnel, who did exactly that. He spent the last
years of his life in the royal household - AFTER he was unmasked,
defeated, suppressed, etc. Perhaps you could provide statistics on what
was "normal for royal impostors". Exactly how many royal impostors are
documented in England, and what happened to them? Only two come
immediately to my mind. One, Perkin Warbeck, was executed. The other,
Lambert Simnel, was given a position in the royal kitchens. With an 'n'
of two, and they enjoying disparate fates, you can hardly conclude what
was 'normal', and even if there was a norm, Simnel shows that seemingly
unlikely fates were possible.
Not having read Mortimer's book, I have to ask, on what basis is said
welshman thought to have been Edward? Certainly there must be something
more than him staying with the royal retinue for a few weeks.
taf