Amazing insightful content on this remarkable figure. I love how eloquently she has been portrayed with care. In all fairness, Edward II was not fit to be king, he was Hugh Despenser's puppet doll and Isabella had enough. Guilty or not and considering her circumstances, she had to choose between becoming a victim or a She-Wolf, she decided to stand up and fight. This is the best video I've seen on her, unbiased and well documented. Thank you so much 🙏🏻
Thank you so much, I'm pleased you enjoyed it! 😊 And you're right, Edward II had definitely opted out of wanting to be a decent king (or possibly king at all, really, considering his behaviour in his youth). I actually had sympathy for him in the period before Hugh Despenser, but everything that happened afterwards was just unforgivable. Isabella absolutely had no choice but to fight against it, and while she wasn't perfect, she certainly made the right decision.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople exactly. I totally agree. She had to and I don't blame her, considering her position. People are the product of their circumstances and context of their times and things were rudimentary compared to today's standards. Where power is concerned there is no time for hesitation. Thank you for all your wonderful knowledge and time dedicated 🙏🏻
This is one of the most comprehensive documentaries of Isabella I've ever seen. Instead of portraying her as some kind of monster, it portrays her as a woman left with no options but to take her power back and protect herself and her children. Love it. ❤️
I am very glad that you have provided a thorough and insightful approach on the complexities regarding this much maligned queen consort of England. Personally, I do not believe she deserves the reputation she had received during the ongoing centuries after her death. As myself a woman, I cannot fathom the thought of being in a loveless marriage as Isabella of France had to endure with her husband. All in all, I think her image needs rehabilitation that can be achieved through objective analysis and evidence of which you have presented in your video documentary of this fascinating woman. Thank you and take care.
Thank you, I'm so pleased you liked the documentary! 😊 I agree that Isabella is definitely due a rehabilitation of her image if anyone ever was! I think a lot of it wasn't even medieval commentators, but much more the later 18th and 19th century historians who were morally outraged at the idea of a woman acting out of being what they thought a medieval woman should do AND having an affair. If she hadn't slept with Mortimer, Isabella would have been outright held up as a saviour who placed her son on the throne, and her greed would have been overlooked.
I have always thought Isabella of France to be one of the most fascinating Queen consorts of England (or anywhere else). It's difficult to fault her for most of what she did, but it seems as though the end could have been happier had Mortimer reined in his ego and not insisted on flaunting their success. I majored in history, and I find myself viewing the conduct of men such as Mortimer and thinking "What in heavens name did you think was going to be the end result of your behavior?" Someone always decides to take them down several pegs.
I absolutely agree! I feel as though Mortimer would have even been tolerated as an adviser to Edward III had he just realised he wasn't actually in charge...sadly, that didn't happen! I wonder if it's because during the middle ages there were so many thrones won through conquest, and so for later nobles or gentry it was hard to shake off the idea that they could claim it for themselves?
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" might've been a phrase coined with Isabella in mind lol. It was the taking of her children that was the final straw IMO. Dishonoring a woman is one thing, but you don't touch her children. Isabella was definitely her father's daughter. She was ruthless, cunning, and smart. It is likely she did indeed fall for Roger Mortimer. He was rich, handsome, an accomplished warrior...a MAN (unlike her husband). However, the affair was also a strategic one for Isabella because Roger perhaps better than anyone could get her an army. It honestly shocks me this hasn't become a major Hollywood movie or HBO series. This is Game of Thrones-level juicy and it all really happened. A beautiful queen has a steamy affair with a dashing lord and leads an army to overthrow the King of England? I mean come on, no screenwriter is coming up with anything better than that lol.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople She reminds me a little of Daenerys Targaryen. I don't know if the story of her eating while Hugh Despenser was disemboweled is actually true, but it does make her especially terrifying lol. George RR Martin ripped all of his stories directly from English history. The new House of the Dragon series is literally just The Anarchy with dragons lol (speaking of awesome women: Matilda was also a badass). GoT was The Heptarchy meets Wars of the Roses (with a little French royal history sprinkled in). Isabella and Roger top them all, IMO. It has literally everything and honestly makes many fictional period melodramas seem boring by comparison lol.
World Without End did a great job with the “Edward II secretly lives” narrative, but their depiction of Isabella was awful. They cast a terrible actress and made her cartoon evil. Disappointing for an otherwise great show.
She has such an interesting dramatic life story. It would make a good movie. Also I would absolutely be pissed as well if my husband treated me like that. 😂
Oh, I totally get her anger! I think she waited too long, personally! 🤣 I would love to see a whole film about Isabella, it would definitely be an epic one.
Queen Isabella of France is one of my favorite queens in history. She was not dealt a good hand but learned with time how to make the best of her unfavorable situations. Medieval Europe was craaaaaazyyyy! Especially for women. So I give it to her, she made good moves. I don’t believe any of the negativity she had. It’s obvious the misogynistic forces of the time were behind the hate of Isabella. I can only imagine the excitement of her arriving in England with Mortimer her boo 😊 and how she collected more n more support until she had an army to be reckoned with! What a moment of karma hearing about the end of Hugh wats-his-name douche. Just an amazing story I love it.
" La louve de France ", this is the titlle of one of the books belonging to a very famous french saga called " Les rois maudits", films about this saga were made too. Since I'm a child, I really love her, her bravery, her brilliant political choices, , her strenght against a weak husband, unable to treat her like his queen, nor honour her as his wife, and unable to be a king, whom however she was faithfull and loyal 20 years long. Isabelle, la louve de France, and Alienor d'Aquitaine, respectivly daughter and former wife of french kings, before becoming both queen of England, are a model to me of how strong and clever and powerful can be a women even in the Middle-Ages. Thank you.
Can you *imagine* what it might've been like being Edward III growing up - under the reign of Depenser, who was a moral deviant for the time period, and a very arrogant and cruel man in ANY time period. Depenser definitely wouldn't have hesitated to throw the royal kids to the wolves...that was why Ed III went to France after all, Despenser knew he was dead if Ed II went, so he convinced the king to send his thirteen year old son across the sea to a country who had very little reason to send him back. The dang heir to the throne. Edward III was the oldest, so probably felt protective over his mother and younger siblings since his father clearly wouldn't...especially when the younger ones were taken away. Not to mention there are historians who thing it is possible the Hugh Depenser "dishonored" Isabella in some way, and what THAT means is potentially anything from battery to S.A. Later, living under "Mom's Boyfriend...." man, the kid must've had an iron will to take all this and come out on top. Its rather inspiring.
I agree - I thought about this when I was making not just this video, but the one about Philippa of Hainault too. I think, although there's no evidence for it really, except perhaps for how much Edward III looked after his mother even when she went too far, that Edward III would nowadays be described as a child who grew up with trauma. The rumours about his father were very public, and there's no way he can't have known about them as he got older.
Thank you! 😊 And it's true, Edward II really wasn't a good guy! To be honest, I had sympathy for him right up until the point where he made Hugh Despenser his new favourite.
I really appreciate the research, content and delivery of your videos. Your voice has a very pleasing aesthetic. I especially enjoy listening after a long day because it is so relaxing. I subscribed immediately and look forward to new content!
This is such a brilliant video! You've done an amazing job laying out the circumstances of Isabella's life, showing that she was far more than the she-wolf that has become her chief moniker (thank you Victorians). I'm curious - I've seen some scholars speculate that Isabella might have fallen pregnant from her affair with Mortimer, but I cannot recall if they cited any evidence for such a claim. Did you find any hint or indication of this in your research? Thank you so much for sharing! :)
Thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊Yup, there were, as you say, some rumours that she may have been pregnant, but I couldn't find any evidence not based on speculation, so I didn't include it. It's highly unlikely, although I think Alison Weir posits the idea that Isabella may have had a miscarriage. It's not impossible, just unlikely at Isabella's age, and in the circumstances, but you never know!
Hi, awesome live history enjoyed it. How are you? I'm doing well. Next video could you do King John the first. Of england. Have a great day see you next video 😊
Hi Michelle, I'm good, thanks! I'm glad you're well. 😊 King John is someone I've been meaning to cover, especially as it would be a challenge to make him likeable!
Oh, Edward most definitely had it coming, it was sh*t after sh*t, he abandoned her, sent her away, revoked her privileges, lands and money, took her *children* away from her, among other things, arrested her kinsman, and other things. Sure, it was probably Hue DeSpenser the Younger who pushed for all of this, but Edward gave his consent, and ultimately treated her like garbage for nothing. Much like Henry VIII- Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour behaved badly, but had Henry not been keen to dispose of their predecessors, they would’ve gotten nowhere (and this comes from an Anne Boleyn despiser- who nevertheless despises Henry much more). I wish Isabella didn’t let herself be influenced by Mortimer as she was (Take Catherine, The Great, for instance: a very active sex life, with multiple men, yet she wasn’t influenced by them- with the exception of Potemkin, but his influence was benign, and had it not been, I don’t think she would’ve kept him as adviser for as long as she did), she would very likely be a much renowned figure! Ironically, Mortimer was Isabella’s DeSpencer, it is weird that she knew her husband’s fall had been due to him, yet did the same (though, thankfully, Mortimer wasn’t as ruthless and his influence didn’t result on the massacre of entire families)! All in all though, I like Isabella, and, as Lindsay Holiday said, “though Isabella was not without her faults, her husband was hardly an innocent victim”
Oh, Edward was definitely the worst king and royal husband possible! I had sympathy for him before Hugh Despenser, but definitely not afterwards. And as you say, it's so funny that Isabella didn't notice she was doing the same thing with Mortimer. Perhaps she fooled herself it was different in some way. I honestly think she was probably also kind of glad, after decades of being strong and holding everything for herself almost alone, to hand over some matters to a capable man who was the opposite of her husband in every way, especially one who found her attractive and probably played on her enjoyment of that.
lesson: dont force men who doesnt want to be a king to be a king. a dont force marriage on people that dont want it. also religion should have never been invented
Those are absolutely lessons to be remembered! I think religion is okay, but only if it doesn't affect people's lives negatively, and we remember to accept everyone's religion as long as it fits that one requirement.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople true but it seems unrealistic so thats why i say having none would be better. it would hold mirror to themselves as they couldnt blame religion or god for their horrible actions but only themselves. but people are very good at excuses so they would probably find something else to blame anyway
I personally wouldn't do what he did as I do not like committing treason but she was in a loveless marriage who is a woman in that century she is a lot braver than me though. Plus Edward seems the worst to me, I would put him as the worse King in British History.
I wonder if you will ever cover Isabella of Angouleme, King John’s wife. While King John didn’t treat her badly, she wound up siding with the barons that drafted the Magna Carta and it was only by some clever state craft that she was able to promote her infant son Henry over the king of France to be the ruler of England after John’s death during what was essentially a civil war with the king’s barons.
Okay, so this might be controversial...but I actually think James II was okay! I think he was definitely someone who never expected to be king, but he was also handed the position during a period of a lot of outside and political change. I also think he really tried his best to promote religious tolerance; while he himself was Catholic, he never told his daughters to stop being Protestant, he never insisted people in his country do the same. I genuinely believe he wanted both religions to coexist. But people were so paranoid about him improving a Catholic chapel or having a Catholic son that they pushed it out of all proportion. He was also, apparently, a loving father to his children. It must have been hard when Mary and Anne both went against him when Mary's and William were invited to take the English throne. He had some bad points, of course - he could be stubborn with his decisions when dealing with Parliament, but then that was a lot of royalty at the time who were struggling with the idea of royalty being divinely chosen but also now at the whims of the people and Parliament (see the French Revolution LOL!). Overall, I don't think he was a bad guy. I think James II wasn't the best king ever, and I think he should have been a lot more flexible with his council and Parliament (the way Anne later was, as she could see how it would work).
@@HistorysForgottenPeople No, I agree with you! I, too, think he wasn’t a bad person, and feel bad for him, having been betrayed by his daughters (I’m not even talking about his sons in law, as those weren’t that big of traitors, at least they weren’t his children). He didn’t persecute Protestants, he merely changed laws persecuting Catholics. I also feel deeply for Mary of Modena, having lost 10 babies, and finally giving birth to a healthy son, only to be discredited by nearly all in the most absurd way possible- a baby in a warming pan?? that boy would have to be made of paper, furthermore, there were reports of fire inside the pan, making it al the more ridiculous😭😭-.
A good video everything considered, but not that well researched in parts. The two main problems and falsehoods are highlighted below. 1) The Isabella-Mortimer relationship The alliance was a practical arrangement, there was nothing romantic about it. A man and a woman can be allies without being lovers, but to the medieval mind this was not a possibility worth contemplating, especially as the woman in question did the unthinkable and rebelled against her husband, the King. Thus she would not be given the benefit of the doubt. Mortimer had very obvious reasons for cultivating this alliance. Just like Despenser had with Edward. And just like Despenser, Mortimer copied all the mistakes of the previous royal favourite which eventually cost him his life. The dynamics between Edward II/Despenser/Isabella were almost exactly the same as the dynamics between Isabella/Mortimer/Edward III. They played the same roles as ruler / favourite / ostracized. Note that Mortimer was a ruthless marsher lord, a natural commander. He wasn't the type to give up any of his power and certainly not to a woman. Isabella outed her sisters-in-law for their extramarital affairs, so would have felt very strongly on this point. What we know of her shrewd and duty bound personality speaks against any such liaison on her part. She had more integrity than that! 2) Edward II was almost certainly not murdered. It's a great shame that this channel just shrugs of this possibility as "the most unlikely outcome" when in reality, it is the most logical conclusion we have to reach considering everything we do know. Again, I'll be as brief as I can. The chroniclers who recorded these events were no more informed about what really happened than the average man on the street. Many people who would have been very well informed about the true state of affairs were certain that he was alive well after he was rumoured to have died. There IS some evidence that he was later att Corfe Castle, and from there moved on to Ireland and thence to the continent, finally ending up in a peaceful Italian convent. As crazy as this does sound it is the most likely scenario considering all the actual facts we are aware of. I won't get into it too deeply, but the Fieschi letter is of great significance, as is the fact the a man claiming to be the father of Edward III met with him in Koblenz, Germany years after. In those days, royal impersonators would regularly get executed, but this time... the man was allowed to live and was not persecuted in any way. He didn't even ask for anything, which is telling. Why, then, would Edward II not have tried to regain the throne, had he remained alive? Because of his personality. Kingship was forced upon him, and he had no interest in government. He always enjoyed the company of lowborn people (example: he was the type to spend time with a lowly fisherman, chatting with him at length and drinking with him, and give him the equivalent of a years wages just because he'd enjoyed his company). He must have been painfully aware that his reign had been a disaster. He was pious and had always found the company of priests, prelates and monks very pleasant. In his teens, he faced criticism for staying much longer in their company than he would have needed to. He was always criticized for ignoring matters of state, always preferring to do hard work with his own hands. Now he was finally at peace, enjoying a blissful existence in a scenic Italian convent in a mountainous setting. He was among like minded people, an equal to them, allowed to fill his days with physical labour and piety, activities which had always given him joy. Why would he have wanted to return to the hellish existence he endured as a king? This is what I imagine he told his son in Germany, and was thus allowed by all to continue his peaceful existence. He was officially declared dead, but allowed to stay alive far away from England and its politics. It was a win-win situation for everyone. It's about time that the real story is told, stripped of medieval misogyny, ignorance and prejudice. Channels such as this should do more in this aspect, if they want to be taken seriously. Sources: Books written by dedicated Edwardian experts Tim Mortimer and Kathryn Warner. They've written several on events of the given time period. Well worth reading for those who want to get more in depth information about the realities of the day. It's worth noting that no one has researched the reign of Edward II more thoroughly than K. Warner, and thus she ought to be listened to, rather than historians who are only acquainted with the reign superficially (such as Dan Jones et. al.).
I'm not a fan of trying to cast Edward and Hugh's relationship as being "equally likely" to be platonic as to be romantic. I respect the fact that there is a *chance* that their relationship was not sexual or romantic--queerplatonic partnerships exist and can be as intensely devoted as romantic ones--but it isn't "equally likely" that this was the case. The behavior between Edward and Piers, and then Edward and Hugh, doesn't lend itself to an *easy* reading of "platonic." And while I also respect the fact that historians don't want to state sexuality as fact without irrefutable proof...I also *don't* really respect it, because historians frequently present their interpretations of historical figures' other subjectivities--such as their personalities, values, and motivations--as fact, without the same amount of/dedication to equivocating and presenting alternate interpretations. It just feels to me like a symptom of heteronormativity. I strongly suspect that if Piers and Hugh had been Phillipa and Helen, being the subject of the same rumors, exerting the same amount of influence over the king, being the people he abandons his wife for...there wouldn't be "Well maybe Edward was just BFFs with them" disclaimers added to the story.
It's true, but I wonder if by that point Isabella simply didn't have full control over Mortimer any more? She was a strong lady, but part of her attraction to him was that he was a very strong personality as well, and eventually he probably started calling the shots over her.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople It is very unlikely that she was attracted to Mortimer in any way. I find it extremely hard to believe that they would have had an affair as she was strictly against that sort of thing, as evidenced by her behaviour upon learning that her sisters-in-law had extramarital affairs. By just studying her personality we can conclude with near certainty that there was nothing physical in that alliance. Misogynistic chroniclers will of course write what they want decades and centuries later. They could not fathom that a woman could be anything but an object, without any strong will of her own. Especially as the woman in question did the unthinkable and rebelled against her husband, the King, she had to be portayed as a promiscuous, loose woman. Mortimer had very obvious reasons for cultivating this alliance. Just like Despenser had with Edward. And just like Despenser, Mortimer copied all the mistakes of the previous royal favourite which eventually cost him his life. The dynamics between Edward II/Despenser/Isabella were almost exactly the same as the dynamics between Isabella/Mortimer/Edward III. They played the same roles as ruler / favourite / ostracized. Mortimer was a ruthless marsher lord, a natural commander. He wasn't the type to give up any of his power and certainly not to a woman. In a nutshell: There is NO evidence at all for them being lovers. This is all just misogynistic medieval propaganda and it's a great pity that even such renown historians as Dan Jones (IMO the McDonalds of historians) accept this myth at face value.
I absolutely agree with you! I think in another life, Edward would have been very happy and caused less pain for others (if he had been born a peasant, as he did seem to enjoy acting that out), but he definitely didn't do well as a king.
Amazing insightful content on this remarkable figure. I love how eloquently she has been portrayed with care. In all fairness, Edward II was not fit to be king, he was Hugh Despenser's puppet doll and Isabella had enough. Guilty or not and considering her circumstances, she had to choose between becoming a victim or a She-Wolf, she decided to stand up and fight. This is the best video I've seen on her, unbiased and well documented. Thank you so much 🙏🏻
Thank you so much, I'm pleased you enjoyed it! 😊 And you're right, Edward II had definitely opted out of wanting to be a decent king (or possibly king at all, really, considering his behaviour in his youth). I actually had sympathy for him in the period before Hugh Despenser, but everything that happened afterwards was just unforgivable. Isabella absolutely had no choice but to fight against it, and while she wasn't perfect, she certainly made the right decision.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople exactly. I totally agree. She had to and I don't blame her, considering her position. People are the product of their circumstances and context of their times and things were rudimentary compared to today's standards. Where power is concerned there is no time for hesitation. Thank you for all your wonderful knowledge and time dedicated 🙏🏻
Qqqq
This is one of the most comprehensive documentaries of Isabella I've ever seen. Instead of portraying her as some kind of monster, it portrays her as a woman left with no options but to take her power back and protect herself and her children. Love it. ❤️
I am very glad that you have provided a thorough and insightful approach on the complexities regarding this much maligned queen consort of England. Personally, I do not believe she deserves the reputation she had received during the ongoing centuries after her death. As myself a woman, I cannot fathom the thought of being in a loveless marriage as Isabella of France had to endure with her husband. All in all, I think her image needs rehabilitation that can be achieved through objective analysis and evidence of which you have presented in your video documentary of this fascinating woman. Thank you and take care.
Thank you, I'm so pleased you liked the documentary! 😊 I agree that Isabella is definitely due a rehabilitation of her image if anyone ever was! I think a lot of it wasn't even medieval commentators, but much more the later 18th and 19th century historians who were morally outraged at the idea of a woman acting out of being what they thought a medieval woman should do AND having an affair. If she hadn't slept with Mortimer, Isabella would have been outright held up as a saviour who placed her son on the throne, and her greed would have been overlooked.
I have always thought Isabella of France to be one of the most fascinating Queen consorts of England (or anywhere else). It's difficult to fault her for most of what she did, but it seems as though the end could have been happier had Mortimer reined in his ego and not insisted on flaunting their success. I majored in history, and I find myself viewing the conduct of men such as Mortimer and thinking "What in heavens name did you think was going to be the end result of your behavior?" Someone always decides to take them down several pegs.
I absolutely agree! I feel as though Mortimer would have even been tolerated as an adviser to Edward III had he just realised he wasn't actually in charge...sadly, that didn't happen! I wonder if it's because during the middle ages there were so many thrones won through conquest, and so for later nobles or gentry it was hard to shake off the idea that they could claim it for themselves?
I think Roger had planned on crowning himself king, not the young Edward. Isabella obviously was never going to let that happen.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" might've been a phrase coined with Isabella in mind lol. It was the taking of her children that was the final straw IMO. Dishonoring a woman is one thing, but you don't touch her children. Isabella was definitely her father's daughter. She was ruthless, cunning, and smart. It is likely she did indeed fall for Roger Mortimer. He was rich, handsome, an accomplished warrior...a MAN (unlike her husband). However, the affair was also a strategic one for Isabella because Roger perhaps better than anyone could get her an army. It honestly shocks me this hasn't become a major Hollywood movie or HBO series. This is Game of Thrones-level juicy and it all really happened. A beautiful queen has a steamy affair with a dashing lord and leads an army to overthrow the King of England? I mean come on, no screenwriter is coming up with anything better than that lol.
I would LOVE to see a movie about Isabella. As you say, there's everything in her story; romance, comedy, drama, war - even horrible executions. 😅
@@HistorysForgottenPeople She reminds me a little of Daenerys Targaryen. I don't know if the story of her eating while Hugh Despenser was disemboweled is actually true, but it does make her especially terrifying lol. George RR Martin ripped all of his stories directly from English history. The new House of the Dragon series is literally just The Anarchy with dragons lol (speaking of awesome women: Matilda was also a badass). GoT was The Heptarchy meets Wars of the Roses (with a little French royal history sprinkled in). Isabella and Roger top them all, IMO. It has literally everything and honestly makes many fictional period melodramas seem boring by comparison lol.
World Without End did a great job with the “Edward II secretly lives” narrative, but their depiction of Isabella was awful. They cast a terrible actress and made her cartoon evil. Disappointing for an otherwise great show.
She has such an interesting dramatic life story. It would make a good movie. Also I would absolutely be pissed as well if my husband treated me like that. 😂
Oh, I totally get her anger! I think she waited too long, personally! 🤣 I would love to see a whole film about Isabella, it would definitely be an epic one.
Edward II was a horrible husband and a bad king. He does not appear too smart to me and was easily convinced by his favourites.
Queen Isabella of France is one of my favorite queens in history. She was not dealt a good hand but learned with time how to make the best of her unfavorable situations. Medieval Europe was craaaaaazyyyy! Especially for women. So I give it to her, she made good moves. I don’t believe any of the negativity she had. It’s obvious the misogynistic forces of the time were behind the hate of Isabella.
I can only imagine the excitement of her arriving in England with Mortimer her boo 😊 and how she collected more n more support until she had an army to be reckoned with! What a moment of karma hearing about the end of Hugh wats-his-name douche.
Just an amazing story I love it.
She was fighting for her kids and herself. I have high respect for that
" La louve de France ", this is the titlle of one of the books belonging to a very famous french saga called " Les rois maudits", films about this saga were made too. Since I'm a child, I really love her, her bravery, her brilliant political choices, , her strenght against a weak husband, unable to treat her like his queen, nor honour her as his wife, and unable to be a king, whom however she was faithfull and loyal 20 years long. Isabelle, la louve de France, and Alienor d'Aquitaine, respectivly daughter and former wife of french kings, before becoming both queen of England, are a model to me of how strong and clever and powerful can be a women even in the Middle-Ages. Thank you.
Can you *imagine* what it might've been like being Edward III growing up - under the reign of Depenser, who was a moral deviant for the time period, and a very arrogant and cruel man in ANY time period. Depenser definitely wouldn't have hesitated to throw the royal kids to the wolves...that was why Ed III went to France after all, Despenser knew he was dead if Ed II went, so he convinced the king to send his thirteen year old son across the sea to a country who had very little reason to send him back. The dang heir to the throne. Edward III was the oldest, so probably felt protective over his mother and younger siblings since his father clearly wouldn't...especially when the younger ones were taken away. Not to mention there are historians who thing it is possible the Hugh Depenser "dishonored" Isabella in some way, and what THAT means is potentially anything from battery to S.A.
Later, living under "Mom's Boyfriend...." man, the kid must've had an iron will to take all this and come out on top. Its rather inspiring.
I agree - I thought about this when I was making not just this video, but the one about Philippa of Hainault too. I think, although there's no evidence for it really, except perhaps for how much Edward III looked after his mother even when she went too far, that Edward III would nowadays be described as a child who grew up with trauma. The rumours about his father were very public, and there's no way he can't have known about them as he got older.
I love these videos! While I do house work, I educate myself on a time of history I never before knew. Well done!
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! ☺ I do exactly the same with other TH-cam creators, I love that.
It is interesting to see that what happened to edward II would set a precedent for what happened later to richard II and charles I
You're right, it's almost a little more pushing each time to see how far the monarch can be pushed (I guess also with King John).
You give all these details that others do not. Love it thank you. Ed2 was a rotter
Thank you! 😊 And it's true, Edward II really wasn't a good guy! To be honest, I had sympathy for him right up until the point where he made Hugh Despenser his new favourite.
I really appreciate the research, content and delivery of your videos. Your voice has a very pleasing aesthetic. I especially enjoy listening after a long day because it is so relaxing. I subscribed immediately and look forward to new content!
Aww, thank you so much! 😊 I hope you'll enjoy my future videos too!
I can’t watch as of yet, but already know it’s gonna be good💪💪
This is such a brilliant video! You've done an amazing job laying out the circumstances of Isabella's life, showing that she was far more than the she-wolf that has become her chief moniker (thank you Victorians).
I'm curious - I've seen some scholars speculate that Isabella might have fallen pregnant from her affair with Mortimer, but I cannot recall if they cited any evidence for such a claim. Did you find any hint or indication of this in your research?
Thank you so much for sharing! :)
Thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊Yup, there were, as you say, some rumours that she may have been pregnant, but I couldn't find any evidence not based on speculation, so I didn't include it. It's highly unlikely, although I think Alison Weir posits the idea that Isabella may have had a miscarriage. It's not impossible, just unlikely at Isabella's age, and in the circumstances, but you never know!
Nice video ❤❤
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊
Great bio with excetional graphics.
Hi, awesome live history enjoyed it. How are you? I'm doing well. Next video could you do King John the first. Of england. Have a great day see you next video 😊
Hi Michelle, I'm good, thanks! I'm glad you're well. 😊 King John is someone I've been meaning to cover, especially as it would be a challenge to make him likeable!
And really interesting info about the first deposition of an English king.
Oh, Edward most definitely had it coming, it was sh*t after sh*t, he abandoned her, sent her away, revoked her privileges, lands and money, took her *children* away from her, among other things, arrested her kinsman, and other things. Sure, it was probably Hue DeSpenser the Younger who pushed for all of this, but Edward gave his consent, and ultimately treated her like garbage for nothing. Much like Henry VIII- Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour behaved badly, but had Henry not been keen to dispose of their predecessors, they would’ve gotten nowhere (and this comes from an Anne Boleyn despiser- who nevertheless despises Henry much more).
I wish Isabella didn’t let herself be influenced by Mortimer as she was (Take Catherine, The Great, for instance: a very active sex life, with multiple men, yet she wasn’t influenced by them- with the exception of Potemkin, but his influence was benign, and had it not been, I don’t think she would’ve kept him as adviser for as long as she did), she would very likely be a much renowned figure! Ironically, Mortimer was Isabella’s DeSpencer, it is weird that she knew her husband’s fall had been due to him, yet did the same (though, thankfully, Mortimer wasn’t as ruthless and his influence didn’t result on the massacre of entire families)!
All in all though, I like Isabella, and, as Lindsay Holiday said, “though Isabella was not without her faults, her husband was hardly an innocent victim”
Oh, Edward was definitely the worst king and royal husband possible! I had sympathy for him before Hugh Despenser, but definitely not afterwards.
And as you say, it's so funny that Isabella didn't notice she was doing the same thing with Mortimer. Perhaps she fooled herself it was different in some way. I honestly think she was probably also kind of glad, after decades of being strong and holding everything for herself almost alone, to hand over some matters to a capable man who was the opposite of her husband in every way, especially one who found her attractive and probably played on her enjoyment of that.
lesson: dont force men who doesnt want to be a king to be a king. a dont force marriage on people that dont want it. also religion should have never been invented
Those are absolutely lessons to be remembered! I think religion is okay, but only if it doesn't affect people's lives negatively, and we remember to accept everyone's religion as long as it fits that one requirement.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople true but it seems unrealistic so thats why i say having none would be better. it would hold mirror to themselves as they couldnt blame religion or god for their horrible actions but only themselves. but people are very good at excuses so they would probably find something else to blame anyway
Excellent!
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊
I personally wouldn't do what he did as I do not like committing treason but she was in a loveless marriage who is a woman in that century she is a lot braver than me though. Plus Edward seems the worst to me, I would put him as the worse King in British History.
Honestly, I think Edward II needs to replace King John as the worst English monarch! 🤣
well done
Thank you! ☺
It’s amazing a series wasn’t made of this Queen.
I wonder if you will ever cover Isabella of Angouleme, King John’s wife. While King John didn’t treat her badly, she wound up siding with the barons that drafted the Magna Carta and it was only by some clever state craft that she was able to promote her infant son Henry over the king of France to be the ruler of England after John’s death during what was essentially a civil war with the king’s barons.
So, what do you think of James II (of England)? Gotta ask those questions on controversial monarchs🙌
Okay, so this might be controversial...but I actually think James II was okay! I think he was definitely someone who never expected to be king, but he was also handed the position during a period of a lot of outside and political change. I also think he really tried his best to promote religious tolerance; while he himself was Catholic, he never told his daughters to stop being Protestant, he never insisted people in his country do the same. I genuinely believe he wanted both religions to coexist. But people were so paranoid about him improving a Catholic chapel or having a Catholic son that they pushed it out of all proportion.
He was also, apparently, a loving father to his children. It must have been hard when Mary and Anne both went against him when Mary's and William were invited to take the English throne. He had some bad points, of course - he could be stubborn with his decisions when dealing with Parliament, but then that was a lot of royalty at the time who were struggling with the idea of royalty being divinely chosen but also now at the whims of the people and Parliament (see the French Revolution LOL!).
Overall, I don't think he was a bad guy. I think James II wasn't the best king ever, and I think he should have been a lot more flexible with his council and Parliament (the way Anne later was, as she could see how it would work).
Sorry for the wall of text! I did make paragraphs but TH-cam has made them vanish. 😅
@@HistorysForgottenPeople No, I agree with you! I, too, think he wasn’t a bad person, and feel bad for him, having been betrayed by his daughters (I’m not even talking about his sons in law, as those weren’t that big of traitors, at least they weren’t his children). He didn’t persecute Protestants, he merely changed laws persecuting Catholics. I also feel deeply for Mary of Modena, having lost 10 babies, and finally giving birth to a healthy son, only to be discredited by nearly all in the most absurd way possible- a baby in a warming pan?? that boy would have to be made of paper, furthermore, there were reports of fire inside the pan, making it al the more ridiculous😭😭-.
A good video everything considered, but not that well researched in parts. The two main problems and falsehoods are highlighted below.
1) The Isabella-Mortimer relationship
The alliance was a practical arrangement, there was nothing romantic about it. A man and a woman can be allies without being lovers, but to the medieval mind this was not a possibility worth contemplating, especially as the woman in question did the unthinkable and rebelled against her husband, the King. Thus she would not be given the benefit of the doubt. Mortimer had very obvious reasons for cultivating this alliance. Just like Despenser had with Edward. And just like Despenser, Mortimer copied all the mistakes of the previous royal favourite which eventually cost him his life. The dynamics between Edward II/Despenser/Isabella were almost exactly the same as the dynamics between Isabella/Mortimer/Edward III. They played the same roles as ruler / favourite / ostracized.
Note that Mortimer was a ruthless marsher lord, a natural commander. He wasn't the type to give up any of his power and certainly not to a woman.
Isabella outed her sisters-in-law for their extramarital affairs, so would have felt very strongly on this point. What we know of her shrewd and duty bound personality speaks against any such liaison on her part. She had more integrity than that!
2) Edward II was almost certainly not murdered.
It's a great shame that this channel just shrugs of this possibility as "the most unlikely outcome" when in reality, it is the most logical conclusion we have to reach considering everything we do know. Again, I'll be as brief as I can.
The chroniclers who recorded these events were no more informed about what really happened than the average man on the street.
Many people who would have been very well informed about the true state of affairs were certain that he was alive well after he was rumoured to have died. There IS some evidence that he was later att Corfe Castle, and from there moved on to Ireland and thence to the continent, finally ending up in a peaceful Italian convent. As crazy as this does sound it is the most likely scenario considering all the actual facts we are aware of. I won't get into it too deeply, but the Fieschi letter is of great significance, as is the fact the a man claiming to be the father of Edward III met with him in Koblenz, Germany years after. In those days, royal impersonators would regularly get executed, but this time... the man was allowed to live and was not persecuted in any way. He didn't even ask for anything, which is telling.
Why, then, would Edward II not have tried to regain the throne, had he remained alive?
Because of his personality. Kingship was forced upon him, and he had no interest in government. He always enjoyed the company of lowborn people (example: he was the type to spend time with a lowly fisherman, chatting with him at length and drinking with him, and give him the equivalent of a years wages just because he'd enjoyed his company). He must have been painfully aware that his reign had been a disaster. He was pious and had always found the company of priests, prelates and monks very pleasant. In his teens, he faced criticism for staying much longer in their company than he would have needed to. He was always criticized for ignoring matters of state, always preferring to do hard work with his own hands.
Now he was finally at peace, enjoying a blissful existence in a scenic Italian convent in a mountainous setting. He was among like minded people, an equal to them, allowed to fill his days with physical labour and piety, activities which had always given him joy. Why would he have wanted to return to the hellish existence he endured as a king?
This is what I imagine he told his son in Germany, and was thus allowed by all to continue his peaceful existence. He was officially declared dead, but allowed to stay alive far away from England and its politics. It was a win-win situation for everyone.
It's about time that the real story is told, stripped of medieval misogyny, ignorance and prejudice. Channels such as this should do more in this aspect, if they want to be taken seriously.
Sources: Books written by dedicated Edwardian experts Tim Mortimer and Kathryn Warner. They've written several on events of the given time period. Well worth reading for those who want to get more in depth information about the realities of the day.
It's worth noting that no one has researched the reign of Edward II more thoroughly than K. Warner, and thus she ought to be listened to, rather than historians who are only acquainted with the reign superficially (such as Dan Jones et. al.).
She was the model for Evita Peron.
Not jumping the playlist,😊
Like deployed 👍
Thank you, I'm pleased you enjoyed it! 😊
Her marriage can't have been sexless if she had 4 kids.
She stopped getting pregnant in her early 20s. It probably was sexless after that last child was born.
I have always sided with Isabella. Calling her a she wolf is just a indication of the fear people have had for strong women.
I'm not a fan of trying to cast Edward and Hugh's relationship as being "equally likely" to be platonic as to be romantic.
I respect the fact that there is a *chance* that their relationship was not sexual or romantic--queerplatonic partnerships exist and can be as intensely devoted as romantic ones--but it isn't "equally likely" that this was the case. The behavior between Edward and Piers, and then Edward and Hugh, doesn't lend itself to an *easy* reading of "platonic."
And while I also respect the fact that historians don't want to state sexuality as fact without irrefutable proof...I also *don't* really respect it, because historians frequently present their interpretations of historical figures' other subjectivities--such as their personalities, values, and motivations--as fact, without the same amount of/dedication to equivocating and presenting alternate interpretations.
It just feels to me like a symptom of heteronormativity. I strongly suspect that if Piers and Hugh had been Phillipa and Helen, being the subject of the same rumors, exerting the same amount of influence over the king, being the people he abandons his wife for...there wouldn't be "Well maybe Edward was just BFFs with them" disclaimers added to the story.
Letting her lover mistreat her son was the stupidest decision of her life.
It's true, but I wonder if by that point Isabella simply didn't have full control over Mortimer any more? She was a strong lady, but part of her attraction to him was that he was a very strong personality as well, and eventually he probably started calling the shots over her.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople It is very unlikely that she was attracted to Mortimer in any way. I find it extremely hard to believe that they would have had an affair as she was strictly against that sort of thing, as evidenced by her behaviour upon learning that her sisters-in-law had extramarital affairs. By just studying her personality we can conclude with near certainty that there was nothing physical in that alliance.
Misogynistic chroniclers will of course write what they want decades and centuries later. They could not fathom that a woman could be anything but an object, without any strong will of her own. Especially as the woman in question did the unthinkable and rebelled against her husband, the King, she had to be portayed as a promiscuous, loose woman.
Mortimer had very obvious reasons for cultivating this alliance. Just like Despenser had with Edward. And just like Despenser, Mortimer copied all the mistakes of the previous royal favourite which eventually cost him his life. The dynamics between Edward II/Despenser/Isabella were almost exactly the same as the dynamics between Isabella/Mortimer/Edward III. They played the same roles as ruler / favourite / ostracized.
Mortimer was a ruthless marsher lord, a natural commander. He wasn't the type to give up any of his power and certainly not to a woman.
In a nutshell: There is NO evidence at all for them being lovers. This is all just misogynistic medieval propaganda and it's a great pity that even such renown historians as Dan Jones (IMO the McDonalds of historians) accept this myth at face value.
And they say Game Of Thrones was fiction! You can’t make this stuff up…
...😊
Found this channel not long ago and I’ve been binging all the videos thank you for such great content ❤
Thank you, I'm glad you're enjoying the channel! ☺
Ditto😊 I work 10 hour shifts and I have been listening to this channel every day
Edward II was a horrible husband and a bad king. He does not appear too smart to me and was easily convinced by his favourites.
I absolutely agree with you! I think in another life, Edward would have been very happy and caused less pain for others (if he had been born a peasant, as he did seem to enjoy acting that out), but he definitely didn't do well as a king.