Stephen Spinks

My opinion of Edward II will, alas, always be colored by the movie Braveheart which portrays him as the feckless and flagrant son of Edward I, “The Hammer of the Scots”. In this biography Stephen Spinks portrays him with sympathy, if not full approval. The big questions about Edward II’s life are (1) Was he gay or bisexual? (2) Was he militarily incompetent? and (3) Did he survive his supposed death at the hands of his wife Isabella and her lover Roger Mortimer?

A quick of summary of his reign: he inherits a country deeply in debt and bogged down in a guerilla war with Robert the Bruce in Scotland. He shows strong favoritism to male friends, first Piers Gaveston and next the Despenser family, father and son (both named Hugh). He loses a major battle to Bruce and Scots at Bannockburn. His nobles become increasingly restive over his favoritism, ambushing and beheading Gaveston and seizing the Despensers and having both hanged, drawn and quartered. Eventually he is deposed by his own wife, Isabella of France, “dies”, and is buried in Gloucester Cathedral. He son, Edward III, overthrows the Isabella/Mortimer ruling coalition.

Spinks is fairly convinced that Edward II was bisexual, noting that contemporaries believed he had sexual relations with his favorites and suggesting that this is the only explanation for the intensity of his relationships, noting it was politically disastrous for him. (Spinks hedges his bets a little, noting that accusations of homosexuality or “sodomy” were common against anyone otherwise disliked, and that Edward II had several children with Isabella. He also claims the accusation that Edward II gave Isabella’s wedding gifts to Gaveston (see Allison Weir’s Queen Isabella) is false; Gaveston was chamberlain of the kings bedchamber and as such received the wedding presents for storage and safekeeping). Similarly, Spinks suggests Edward II’s relationship with Despenser family, even when the nobility England revolted, can only be explained if the Despensers had some sort of hold over him (and implies it was a sexual hold).

For the charge of military incompetence, Spinks argued that Edward II had performed well in several battles before and after Bannockburn, claiming that Bannockburn was not the result of Edward’s incompetence but of the military talent of Robert the Bruce. Edward – and his advisors – expected the Scots to withdraw when the English army arrived to relieve the siege of Sterling Castle and resume guerilla warfare – which was what had always happened in the past. Instead the Scots took a great risk and engaged an army three times their size, taking advantage of the fact that the English army was still in marching order rather than combat deployment. The risk paid off and the English cavalry broke against the Scottish schiltroms; the archers were out of position to engage.

Spinks, like Allison Weir, buys into the theory that Edward II survived his supposed death. This requires that the body that received an elaborate funeral and burial was somebody else, and that Edward II became a happy hermit living in a monastic cell in Italy. All the evidence is circumstantial, although I admit Spinks marshals and presents it very well. Although it’s a romantic notion, it does stretch credulity somewhat. I caution that I’m not a professional historian, just an enthusiastic reader; therefore my opinions shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Quite readable, although it was a little hard keeping track of the numerous nobles involved; perhaps a dramatis personae would have helped, as would a map of the battle of Bannockburn. A plate section with people and places. Endnotes and bibliography.… (mer)