Edward II (The English Monarchs Series) Paperback – January 31, 2012

Seymour’s Edward II is another excellent book in the Yale English Monarch series. I’ve been going through this series somewhat chronologically and have now wrapped up Edward II.This book is very thorough, packed with a lot of info, and contrary to other reviews I think Seymour’s analysis is fine. He’s simply conveying what seems to be the modern view of Edward II shared by historians. For example, the aspect of him possibly being homosexual. I’m now in the camp that it was unlikely. As the book mentions, there isn’t enough evidence. Was his relationship with Gaveston pretty abnormal for the time or at least compared to other kings I’ve read about in this series? Yes, but the idea that they had a sort of brotherly bond makes sense. Think about it. Edward II grew up in a household where his brothers were dead or soon to be dead. Him becoming king probably at one time seemed very unlikely. Due to this lack of male companionship, I can see him becoming easily attached to someone like Gaveston and being easily influence by someone like the younger Despenser.Any who, this is a great well written book on Edward II and was much better imo than Prestwich’s Edward I which I read prior. I find the more recent releases in this series (any published after the year 2000) benefit from much better organization and while very much academic, easier to read.Now in terms of the subject matter. I loved it. Of all the reigns I’ve read in detail about in the series from Athelstan to now Edward II, this had to be the most interesting reign cause it’s honestly just crazy at times. There was so much politics. Polarizing historical figures like Thomas of Lancaster (the greatest contrarian of all time), Queen Isabella, Roger Mortimer, the Despensers, Robert Bruce, and of course Edward II himself among others. War and bloodshed. It was very much like the back end of Henry III’s reign, but with a bit more treachery and nobles getting executed in the most gruesome of fashions. Plus a murder mystery!So if you’re someone looking to learn about Edward II with a more informative academic book, I say look no further. I actually have another book on Edward II that I was planning to read instead, but since I’ve gotten too knee deep in the Yale series I opted to read this 600+ pager and don’t regret it.Plus like other books in the series, many pages are not very long as the sources & explanations are in the footers. So if you don’t read any of that like I do, this book maybe comes in under 500 pages of core reading material so not too bad. Got it done in under 3 weeks.Anyway super interesting reign, excellent, book, and now it’s time to move on to Edward III!

Well researched, fair and balanced in his portrayal of not only Edward II, but the other major players in his life. I also appreciated that Phillips took the time to dig past the stereotypical views and assumptions about Edward. I would highly recommend this book.

Great book!

Written history of King Edward II has been very bad. Seymour Phillips has helped him look more human.Things Edward did back then were considered bad because he was royalty. He enjoyed doing things thatregular people did. Edward didn't care to be king, he happened to be born the oldest male to survive andwas put on the throne. He appeared to be gay so he was damned for that as well.Edward II, the unconventional king by Kathryn Warner is probably the most accurate book on this King Edward.

It was a library book but I am sure nobody ever checked it out. Pristine condition It reads like a who's who in medieval politics. The king's life in minute daily detail. Extensive footnotes and references on every page. Everybody who was anybody is here. Reading it from over to cover would take many weeks, but I was impressed. Regarding the controversy, I believe Edward was gay or bisexual and just didn't care what people thought about it. Unfortunately, it appears that his judgement was clouded by his emotions.

Agree with the review above in that the book is comprehensive and extensively researched.My problem is how the author is defensive of any hint of a sexual relationship between Edward and his favorites. Although taken individually, the pieces of evidence can be reasonably explained away and Edward presented as 100% hetrosexual(which the author does), the totality of it all is not so easily dismissed (which the author does). Every piece of evidence that would suggest Edward might have had a gay relationship gets dismissed as either ambigious or biased--even when their authors are relied on as solid reporters for other events. Some of the "biased" evidence was writen when people with living memory were still around, and there is a sufficient amount of it that Phillips really needed to tackle the perception as a whole--one or two period writers might be biased, but its a harder sell to dismiss them all as such.One point of absurdity here is when he presents another writer's hypothesis that Edward and his favorites entered into some pact of sworn brotherhood of equals. When presented in the text, he rightly claims there is scant evidene for this (indeed, a far simpler hypothesis is that Edward was simply gay and avoid the problem issue that a sworn brotherhood is by FAR more likely to be explicitly noted by the chronicles than a taboo relationship). However, just a few pages later he asserts that a physical relationship between Edward and Gaveston was not possible because a sworn brother wouldn't be a physical relationship (which is unsupported).I'm taking away two stars because the author is vehemently dismissive of any evidence that Edward was in a physical relationship with his favorites. If this was a only a book on the period and not a person, it would easily get 5 stars. However, because this is a biography as much as a historical period narrative, the author is too dismissive of what was potentially a major piece of Edward's personality. If Edward were homosexual, it was the (potentially?) prime motivator for much of what occured in his reign.I walked away from the English Monarch's Series Henry I feeling like I knew what Henry was about. Since Edward II is by far more documented, it should be easy to do that with this book as well. However I didn't because I wasn't convinced with the basic assumptions the author makes early on. Making the case that Edward II was 100% not gay and coming across as a revisionist isn't something that can be acomplished in a few quick pages by claiming all the sources were just biased.

Excellent book. Reading it now for the second time

The Troublesome Reign and Lamentable Death of Edward the Second'Seymour Phillips has produced a brilliant biography of King Edward II, who has the misfortune to be `sandwiched' between two of the 'greatest' medieval kings. The author's style is very clear and his division into small sections the chapters making up this scholastic tome make it easier reading. The book is massive - in scholarship, in references and in bibliography - and is the culmination of a lifetime's research into the early 14th century.The first seventy-odd pages deal with Edward II's reputation - a weakling, obsessed with homosexual activity and cuckolded by his wife, who was eventually deposed and murdered. Seymour Phillips firmly rejects the homosexual charge but admits an excessive royal reliance on favourites such as Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser. Memory of the reign is marred by the disaster suffered by the English at Bannockburn, partly due to inept leadership and partly due to inadequate resources. However, Edward had had more military experience than usually recognised but was undermined by a personality and life-style alienating magnates like Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, which didn't help assembling, organising and employing what remained essentially a `feudal host'. The author identifies the faults on both sides which destroyed cohesion at the top for most of the reign. The frequent absences of Thomas of Lancaster from parliaments, military operations or official events (whether through fear of treachery or spiteful aims at disruption) made consistent government impossible. The squabbles among those surrounding the King, more often about land or marriage than official policy, bred distrust and disharmony. The author does give due credit to the Church, not least the Avignonese Papacy ( a surprise to myself), in trying to patch over the fissures in the English upper class. Seymour Phillips examines minutely the circumstances of the King's deposition, the details of his death and the rumours of his survival.Seymour Phillips describes how the King muddled through to triumph in 1322 over his enemies, exacting terrible revenge and acquiring unprecedented wealth. He adds the rider: `But it proved to be a pyrrhic victory. The effect was to raise the stakes to such heights that in future anyone wishing to engage in violent opposition to the king had to be prepared to end the king's reign and even his life' (P.412). Seventy-five years later hubris caused Richard II to make the same mistake and suffer the same nemesis. In his conclusion, Seymour Phillips sums up his subject with the words: `Edward II was an enigma in his own time and in some respects he remains an enigma now.'(P. 613)Of course, the book provides full details of the `general' history of the reign - parliamentary business, treaty arrangements and royal finances. What are missing are genealogical tables. It struck me that the interpersonal links uncovered by Namier years ago re' 18th century politics could be paralleled by the royal and noble houses of the early 14th century. There's a bewildering catalogue of marriages of heiresses and groupings of barons which might be helped by a chart of, say, the family links of Thomas of Lancaster or of Hugh Despenser.Overall, however, the book is a great biography and should prove indispensable to any student of early 14th century England. The title of this review is part of the full title of Christopher Marlowe's play - "The Troublesome Reign and Lamentable Death of Edward the Second, King of England, with the Tragical Fall of Proud Mortimer". This book provides the factual basis for that summary.

Edward II doesn't come in for a good press generally speaking. His reign gets written off as a dire spell between two great ones; his morals are questioned; and the supposed manner of his death makes him a joke.It's always seemed to me that whoever followed Edward I was going to have a most difficult reign. Edward I had bled the country dry for his military exploits, alienated a large part of the baronage and left an unstable political framework. One could write a good part of the story of Edward II's reign just from the state of England at his accession.He was blamed for the state coffers being empty - but his father had emptied them, and left substantial debts. We're told he mishandled the peers - but they were spoiling for a fight after the way they'd been treated. He suffered military reverses - but the nation was overstretched.That doesn't absolve Edward II from the mistakes he did make. He certainly had a blind spot when it came to Gaveston, and inadvertently set him up as a target, though one can wonder how much it was because Gaveston seemed actually to be on his side.This book gives a detailed account of Edward II's reign that is balanced, judicious and rooted in the evidence. For that it deserves much praise.It is, however, as exhausting as it is exhaustive, and the sheer weight of detail makes it hard going in places. Yet that comes with the territory to a certain extent; if you are going to write a full and balanced account, then the detail is unavoidable.For anyone who wants a reliable account of a reign that is surrounded by misapprehensions and innuendoes, and which enables Edward II to be seen as a man with an impossible role, then this book has to be a strong contender.

One hesitates to use terms like 'definitive' in describing any book on history, but it is difficult to see how anyone could improve on this work. The author examines not only the facts as history records them but also many of the attitudes, either contemporary or more recent, to Edward's reign. He presents a picture of a King who is very able, but also flawed and unlucky. Edward's great quality of loyalty to those who he regarded as friends led him astray when that loyalty became unquestioning. This book also examines the various theories suggesting that Edward did not die at Berkeley Castle. Sadly, he shows how they are probably wishful thinking. Yes, possibly the 'definiitive' work on this King.

Well balanced and clear. A better history than most books about this troubled monarch, and far more positive in its assessment of the time.