Indeed, absolutely love this channel! They are epic man and they've done the best documentary on Henry V on TH-cam in my opinion ☺️ love Henry V, definitely my favourite King of England lol sorry got carried away but yeah, if you like these guys you might like the channel HistoryMatters, they do small but informative documentaries on all history mate including videos on all monarchs of England from the Anglo-Saxons to the house of Windsor mate ☺️👍
Thank you for a wonderful documentary. Edward II is my 20th great-grandfather. Your documentary pulled together much of the information I had discovered on my own along with much I had not yet found in a concise, detailed and understandable fashion.
N it served him right that dude was 50% part of destroying a future heir because his lover(king edward) had a wife or woman but chose to lay with a man that kills recreation every man is put here to fertilize the earth not to be part of the destruction of
I was watching this and so enjoyed it and went to click the "like" thumbs up. That was when I noticed that it was at 999. I clicked it and made it 1K. This was truly well-deserved.
I think Dan Jones said it best when he said quate "Edward is the sort of guy how can only see one step ahead. He wants what he wants now no matter the coast."
I never really learned about English royalty until just recently, in the past few months (got a lot of time on my hands due to the pandemic). Now I'm watching all the TH-cam vids and documentaries, so thanks for the upload! Greetings from across the pond
I love this channel so much. The drawings and imagery, are beautiful, there’s so much good research put into it and the narrators voice just makes it so much better
The bottom line is that Isabella landed with 700 men and raised an army led the by the nobles of the land as she marched toward London. The king, Edward, could not raise an army in his own country and ended up fleeing with a favorite. They were captured and killed. This is a catastrophic failure of kingship. It was not caused by any famine, pestilence, or a devastating invasion by a foreign power. It was just that the nobles hated him, his favorites, and his wretched administration. There were more wicked kings and less mentally competent kings, but it is hard to see that any of them did a worse job of day to day kingship.
Man, I feel so bad for the guy. I'm 38 minutes in and already I get the feeling he didn't want to be a king. He just wanted to live a life of nobility while living with his lover/BFF/homie Gaveston. Another classic case of a man thrusted into a realm of power he did not want, but had no choice.
😀😀 he was incompetent, and yes he wanted to be a king, why does leftist think gays or any other minority Group in the west today are all good? Guess what gays can be horrible people to him cheating to isabella with a man is the same as he cheating isabella with a woman
He seemed to be fond of the common man given his pass time hobbies. If only he had been born at a different era and had a more scholarly education he would have been a able leader
My husband loves these videos, I can't get my phone from him til he watches all of them, so I subscribe to the channel and now I love 💘 it ,keep up the awesome work 🖐💣🤘👍👋
Edward IV wasn’t bad either and if you want to go back even further look at King Æthelstan and how he united England and made Scotland and Wales his tribute Kingdoms.
“My father is deceased; come, Gaveston, and share the kingdom with thy dearest friend.” My all time favourite line from the English literature. Edward II was for sure one of the most tragic figures in the history of British monarchy. He just loved the wrong people. “Y. Mor. Why should you love him whom the world hates so? K. Edw. Because he loves me more than all the world.”
Really, I don't think so, as I know that this one was very special, so special that a King would bring his body back to his England, to be buried secretly!
I always put Edward II at bottom even below John (btw, SOME English ruler needs to be ballsey enough to name their first child 'John') but John was cruel to ppl and nit a great king. Edward.... Never seemed 'cruel' perse. Just loyal to his (poorly chosen) friend and bad at ruling
Apart from Edward II as a person and king, I always think of the fact, that he was his parents' 4th son. 4TH!! Just consider, from the royal perspective the pressure of not only getting an heir, but of producing enough heirs, that 1 could live till adulthood to inherit. It must have been a constant desperate fight with fate. And then from the human perspective, the parents, whether royals or ordinary ppl, who lose so many children. I cannot even begin to contemplate the pain of losing 1 child, let alone several.
I’m sorry but I think people go to great lengths to deny the possibility of a romantic aspect to the relationship between Piers and Edward. While I honestly think there wasn’t anything sexual between Edward and the Despensers, it is clear he loved Piers above anyone else. At his and his wife’s coronation, Piers was wrongly and insultingly given pride of place and his coat of arms displayed besides the king’s instead of Isabella’s, and during the whole ceremony the king only paid attention to him. He also gave him Isabella’s best jewels and gifts. Even if they never consummated their relationship because of the prejudice of the time Edward truly loved Piers, he tore his kingdom apart to avenge him, he was his love, his soulmate.
Interesting show. I think like all of us he was a human being, with human flaws - but with also showed periods of greatness, love for his family and friends. Alas being human he came too with weaknesses and whilst born into the position of King in an era of great violence, made many mistakes. It was his human weaknesses and mistakes that got him dethroned and perhaps killed. It was very good to see a documentary that succeeded in being fair and unbiased. Thankyou.
Bollocks, he was Sadam and Hitler nightmare who could not stand to let incumbent Welsh, Scottish Princes and Countries be anything except under his ego-centric control. He should be recognized as a tyrant and NOTHING great about his "rule". Fuck Edward and his wet son.
I think he was selfish and unwise. Keeping a country in almost constant rebellion is not very good kingship. He showed very poor judgement in his favourites, and was almost certainly too fond of his own entertainment. Insulting his new wife's family (after marrying her to gain allies) was stupid and proved that he was not very savvy. Seems like a disaster of a reign to me. Did he actually accomplish anything of note ? Winning battles against his own subjects does not count.
British geneticist have stated that it is almost impossible not to be descended from Edward the third if you're of partial British descent. I myself have found two lines in which I descend from Edward the third (I also found a couple of other lines which leads back to siblings of his). However I would be intrigued to know if there is a direct male line of his which survives to day. As in people who's direct paternal line lead back to him
It's interesting that Isabella's actions were wrong and right at the same time... Edward II wasn't a good fit for King but Edward III was... Bad actions (towards her husband) that ended up doing some good (to her son and England)! OMG I love this channel! Always bringing great videos with such effort! ❤
@@rogerkearns8094 yeah, you were. You got lucky and were the last one standing. You only kept your crown (my crown) because you married my daughter. I'm the undefeated King of England. Victorious in every battle i commanded, the best general of the Wars of the Roses. Everything your dynasty has done was built on my achievements. I brought back England from the brink of collapse under Henry VI. I brought law and order back to England. I defeated the combined forces of the Lancastrians and the man who made me king. You're just what was left, not the best.
@@henryvkingofenglandandfran7220 yeah he was. Its tragic his dynasty did not survive. Ironically, the subsequent Tudor and Stuart dynasties also failed in the male line and the founders of each dynasty only survived through daughters. The Tudor Dynasty through Margaret Tudor daughter of Henry VII who married a Stuart King, and the Stuart Dynasty through James I's youngest daughter Elizabeth. Basically the current Royal Family onoy descends from the founding York, Tudor and Stuart monarchs.
Edward had half-brothers not step brothers. Step siblings share no blood, just United by marriage. He and his half-brothers shared the same father. Otherwise, thank you. You are very good at these.
Thank you for an incisive documentary. I've always thought that Isabella was incredibly patient with Edward II -- until he tried to give lands belonging to the Prince of Wales to the Despencers. Once the patrimony of the future Edward III was threatened, Isabella rebelled. And yes: I do think that Edward II was one of the worst English kings, along with John & Henry VIII.
@@leonieromanes7265 I fully agree! Isabella's turning point was when her son's inheritance was threatened. As the Prince of Wales *needed* to have his properties & rights in order to maintain his position as heir to the throne, Edward's transfer of said properties may have seemed like a signal that the *Despencers* would be the new heirs. No wonder that Isabella rebelled!
They also have Bruce and Wallace which surrounds this period. I love how they document large periods of time from varying perspectives and historical context covering vasts amount of information. You find that too with the world war II series of the heads of states from the US, UK, Germany and Russia. Endless entertainment and education. It's great.
I think Edward II was just vulnerable and distracted. It's like he had too many people upon him all up in his ear which couldn't really give him the strength to lead the kingdom properly. To me it lead him to become irresponsible. It's a good thing his son took over before his death. Great documentaries! I really enjoy them.
Thankyou for mentioning the evidence that goes against the long held idea that Edward II was killed with a red-hot iron poker. Your research is very thorough
Edward II may not have been the best king of England, but he was certainly one of the most human. His upbringing and character formed him into an unusually sensitive, emotional, and perhaps empathetic king for that time. The personal interest he showed in all his diverse subjects urged him to freely mix socially with laborers, shipwrights, and others of inferior social status from whom he should have been receiving deference. From what we know of human sexuality today, it is easily possible for him to have had sexual relationships with both his wife and his male favorites. Unfortunately, such liberal social preferences and too frequent disregard for traditions and behaviors expected of him, did not endear him to either the common people or the nobility whose support he depended upon. Considering all the facts we can know, Edward II was probably not a bad king, nor a bad person. However, his personal desires, political affiliations, and tendency to make emotionally-charged decisions rather than rational ones were all clearly detrimental to his kingship. Sadly, they would would eventually prove to be fatal as well.
I think that by far the worst king was Henry Vlll, wickedly cruel, during his reign there were over eighty thousand executions of the people mostly of those who disagreed with him over rights and religion.
You can’t do Richard without going back to Matilda, Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Richard’s brothers. It’s more like “I, Claudius” than a one-off undertaking.
In terms of the worst monarchs, Stephen there too. Userped the throne from Matilda, he failed to secure leading to a disastrous civil war and he didn't even manage to get his heir to succeed him. Gets overlooked a bit.
Rich CCR - other candidates: John. Aethelred II “The Unready” (genocide on his own people). Charles I. Henry VI (let his Queen rip England into factionalism and civil war). Henry VII (mass blackmailer). Mary (religious murder). Edward “The Confessor” (made a complete mess of succession, factionalism and favourites). Edward IV (married stupidly, reignited factionalism and revolt). Richard I (financial ruin, never home).
Mango T - mainly because I know less about him than most of the others. Although there’s a massive question mark over what Bolingbroke did... was it justified to usurp the crown, the way he did?
Mike Reger 🤔. Well, he basically disinherited Bolingbroke, confiscating all his lands. Which was a huge chunk, he WAS Richard’s first cousin, after all. So, Bolingbroke really had nothing to lose. I would say he was justified.
Meanwhile, Tsar Peter the Great, turned Russia into a dominant European power exactly because of his love of boat building and engineering... Kind of weird when you hear that it was considered "foul" to be interested in what would actually drive the kingdom forward :(
This is pretty cool, and a nice interpretation. He seems like a nice guy, but he clearly disliked the job and his naive lack of interest in courtly intrigue seems to have been his undoing.
Edward II's biggest problem was a lack of character - both in instilling loyalty and when faced by desperation. But he wasn't characteristically malicious like John or wilfully neglectful like Richard I, both of whom were not only worse kings but out-and-out traitors to their own father Henry II. Read some writing on history instead of watching docos. According to Dickens, King John was "a miserable brute," Henry VIII was "a blot of blood and grease," and Henry III was "a mere shadow of a king at all times." They were all worse than Edward II, but that's not saying much.
Edward's boyfriend "borrowing" his wife's jewelry AND out-fashioning her in said jewels was indeed the last ducking straw. XD It's a shame though, to be g@y/bi, and born into the wrong country and century's going to automatically be sheer agony. x_x Why the world just couldn't (still can't) accept a reality of king/king, or queen/queen is mind boggling to me. Almost most of royals were somewhat illegitimate/took the crown/were descended from people who stole the crown anyways. An adopted kid, or surrogate pregnancy would have been nothing.
The interesting thing about hereditary monarchy is that you never know what you are going to get. Edward 11 was clearly, especially unsuited for medieval kingship. However Richard 11, Henry V1, Richard 111 and Charles 1 were all monarchs whose hapless reigns also precipitated major crises.
I need a flowchart for the titles and relations. 😂 Despite my shortcomings, I enjoyed this immensely. Very well done! I've subscribed and look so forward to learning more about my ancestors. Love to all...❤
By far the best thing on this king. For untangling all the complexities of homophobia, tolerance, gender dismissal toward women (misplaced in this case), and court intrigue, this documentary can be praised for not flinching.
@George Job I've never understood why civilians were slaughtered in war even when one side had been more powerful. I won't say won' because nobody actually wins a war - one side just crawls out less devastated that the other.
@@viktoriaironpride4977 I’m Scottish & I’ve had to correct a few ppl on that. That’s not the worst of it. They would’ve taken Isabella hostage & negotiated with the French as well as having ALL their Scottish prisoners freed. We didn’t get taught Scottish history in Scottish schools so braveheart as historically inaccurate as it was, git Scottish ppl a lot more interested in their history. If you were brought up as a Nationalist you were expected to know every king & Queen since Kenneth McAlpine & learn English history in school. It was grueling then but grateful for it now
Did you even watch the video? There is a reason why Edward II is called the worst king of England; he allowed his homosexual favorites to control State Policy to the detriment of the State!
@@StevenTorrey it was alleged by medieval chronicles that Edward ii & Piers Gaveston were lovers then rumours were later reinforced by Christopher Marlowe’s play in late 16th century: Edward II. According to Pierre Chaplais (French lawyer & historian) they had more of an adoptive brotherhood relationship. Other historians such as JS Hamilton point out that the men’s sexuality was not at the core for the reasons the nobles were grieved. They were more worried about Gaveston’s exclusive access to the royal patronage. Homosexual or not he gave England his son & heir who turned out to be a much more successful king than his father.
Glad to see the Edward series rounded out so perfectly here, I always thought Edward II had the most interesting story of the three. I never fully bought into the homosexuality theory pushed so heavily on other documentaries, nor did I know all roads led back to Christopher Marlowe.
Definitely well said to you both, shame for Henry III though as even though he was on the throne for a very long time it's clear to us that he wasn't the one making the decisions and actually ruling our lovely Country as he was more of a yes man to his nobles, still though least he wasn't a cruel man and as you both said him and Edward II weren't cruel to their people either. Absolutely love our history man this channel always does amazing videos👍☺️
@Poddy dodger Unræd doesn't mean unready, that's a later mistranslation that somehow became popular. Æþelræd means 'wise counsel' and 'Unræd' means ill-advised. It's meant to be a sarcastic/ironic nickname and a play on words. Wise-counsel the ill-advised. He had pretty terrible people around him advising him and suffered from traitors on more than one occasion, so he had that name bestowed upon him (though nobody likely ever uttered it to his face...)
dodger yepper I did I love to learn about English history Can you imagine the stories we dont know about Anyway I think the folks across the pond are so cool Franklin county Va. U.S.A.
That Gaveston dude must have been quite a man and must have given Edward much happiness and fun. Marrying a woman and fathering children does not negate homosexual relationships. Look at modern times.
For amateur history buffs who, like me, have trouble telling the first three Edwards apart, I recommend this little ditty from the brilliant BBC show, Horrible Histories: "Edward One hated Scots / A red hot poker killed Ed Two / That must have hurt him lots / Ed the Third was a chivalry nerd / And began the Hundred Years War."
It's a nice thought to imagine Edward lived out his days after 1327 away from danger. Yes, he was flawed but aren't we all. A very sympathetic and emotional man - born to rule but far ahead of his time. Thanks for the video.
I am here cause of my favourite book series, Druon: Accursed Kings. Its a really accurate historical fiction from the death of the Templar leaders until Edward III claims the french throne to himself. Love the part about roger mortimer and Isabella disposing Edward II only to be disposed by Edward III. This gives more historical background and accuracy
Most of the details in these videos are done very well. But this isn't the first video where I've heard half-siblings mistakenly called step-siblings, which causes confusion (particularly in cases of dynastic succession). I hope such confusion will be avoided in future episodes.
Discarding all of the SPECULATION over the previous centuries about his personal life, big and small, one flaw stands as a monument representing all others, loyalty. He either couldn't see or blatantly crossed the line of Loyalty to Country above Loyalty to Friends
He is talented, gifted and competent but he failed because of hesitation, bad entourage, bad evaluation of situations and circumstances, bad advisers and bad luck.
It appears to me that Edward ll was simply corrupted by his own power and status and assumed that he could behave in ways that he knew would offend other high born people in England. His affection for his favorites seems to have ruled his emotions instead of making wise political alliances. He was not the homosexual weakling portrayed in the movie Braveheart. However, he clearly was a colossal failure as a king who squandered his power due to his own haughtiness.
It sometimes double skips. William II was the first skip. Then King Stephen. Then John and Henry III. Then Edward II. Then Richard II. Then Henry VI (and you can argue for Henry IV as well), then Richard III
Jack Sainthill I think on the bright side Edward VIII was sooo bad he covered the bad for the next two monarchs. Charles and William could have us back on course with bad-good
I note you do consider Edwards survival beyond 21/9/1327. Certainly as people like Ian Mortimer have done a great deal of research into Edward of Carnarvon's survival. The things that convinced me were three fold. 1) Why did the Pope entertain someone claiming to be Edward for a fortnight! As the Pope personally knew Edward so an imposter would have been easily identified. 2) The Fieschi family were not just mere "priests" but very significant in the Avignon Papacy. Certainly Manuele Fieschi was very close to the Pope. Also he was Edward's kinsmen. Also as Prof Mortimer points out the Fieschi letter must have been written by someone who was remarkably well informed and in all probability the original source of the information would have been Edward himself. 3) Edward III went to absurd and extremely expensive lengths to purge the English archives to hide what had exactly happened to his father. In all likelihood Edward died in northern Italy in the early spring of 1343. That would go some way to explain the curious banner Edward III displayed at St Albans that Easter " It Is As It Is" what exactly did he mean by that? Hmm I suspect that it was a signal to inform those who actually knew the truth that Edward of Carnarvon really had died. Certainly a very strange tale indeed.
I think ultimately he gave his adversaries to much leeway, in that he gambled their loyalty to the crown would outwait their personal dislike for him and his confidants! In order to maintain his power, his father would have executed those who exhibited disloyalty, where Edward the 2nd seem to forgive his wrong doers! Politics then and now is a blood sport, not fit for the weak of heart or those with humanity at their core! I hate to say it, but Good hearted people rarely succeed in the affairs of state! It takes cunning and ruthlessness, like in a dog fight, even the noble dog is trying to chew the others throat out! Such is the human condition!
Controversial king. The origins of the modern Anglo-American legal system are in the Fourteenth Century. Edward I was called 'the English Justinian". Relevant to us in 2020, the Black Plague came after Edward II was deposed and Edward III passed legislation to deal with the Plague, which he did by putting upper limits on the pay laborers could receive. This led to the Peasant's Revolt during the reign of Richard II. It was led by Watt Tyler and John Ball. Richard II gave the Peasant's concessions so the establishment had to overthrow him. So you see the origins of the modern legal system. They wealthy establishment always lands on its feet. Both in England and the countries it settled, like Canada, the United States, Australia. In South Africa they produced a wealthy English speaking Black elite to take charge. New Zealand seems to be the only place where Watt Tyler and John Ball may have won.
In all honesty while watching this it’s hard to see him as the worst king. I mean for once you hear of an English King who actually filled the treasure vault, he also tossed down many rebellions and bested the second most powerful man in England at the time with Lancaster. The only issue that he really had was the disrespect he had for the other nobels, and the favoritism to upstarts while they may have served him well he could of solved a lot of his problems by tossing a bone to his Nobels every once in a while. Also not getting destroyed by there own incompetence against the Scott’s would have also helped.
Hello guys! If you like our work please subscribe to our second channel The History Chronicles th-cam.com/users/TheHistoryChronicles
Its obvious you put a lot of effort into these videos, well done mate 👍
Indeed, absolutely love this channel! They are epic man and they've done the best documentary on Henry V on TH-cam in my opinion ☺️ love Henry V, definitely my favourite King of England lol sorry got carried away but yeah, if you like these guys you might like the channel HistoryMatters, they do small but informative documentaries on all history mate including videos on all monarchs of England from the Anglo-Saxons to the house of Windsor mate ☺️👍
Thank you for a wonderful documentary. Edward II is my 20th great-grandfather. Your documentary pulled together much of the information I had discovered on my own along with much I had not yet found in a concise, detailed and understandable fashion.
Findinding such interesting things about your ancestors is amazing,isn't it! ..and can sometimes be unsettling- like one of mine who owned slaves..
State your claim to the throne
Time to rise in rebellion for your bid to the throne!
Remember the unintentionally hilarious scene in Braveheart when the Longshanks throws 'Piers Gaveston' (or whatever his name was) out of a window.
N it served him right that dude was 50% part of destroying a future heir because his lover(king edward) had a wife or woman but chose to lay with a man that kills recreation every man is put here to fertilize the earth not to be part of the destruction of
The truth is even worse .. EdwardI out Piers in his sons life hoping it would man him up 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
As far as i know he was well versed in tactics yet didn't see that coming
@@louishawkins6563 well sadly I'm infertile even though I have a wife. Explain that
@@biffmuncher23 hell who knows.could be worse..God speed
Thank you for your effort. I love listening to history documentaries before I go to sleep.
I was watching this and so enjoyed it and went to click the "like" thumbs up. That was when I noticed that it was at 999. I clicked it and made it 1K. This was truly well-deserved.
It is nice hearing different enterpretations of the lifes of the English monarchs. That way you can get more details and depth to history.
Well done.
@alan wilson Very true. I am neither a native speaker nor good at spelling.
Agreed.
I think Dan Jones said it best when he said quate "Edward is the sort of guy how can only see one step ahead. He wants what he wants now no matter the coast."
I never really learned about English royalty until just recently, in the past few months (got a lot of time on my hands due to the pandemic). Now I'm watching all the TH-cam vids and documentaries, so thanks for the upload! Greetings from across the pond
I'm running with wolves tonight
Same here! I was inspired to learn, so I’ve been listening to all the videos while I drive to work
I love this channel so much. The drawings and imagery, are beautiful, there’s so much good research put into it and the narrators voice just makes it so much better
Thanks so much for the kind comment
The bottom line is that Isabella landed with 700 men and raised an army led the by the nobles of the land as she marched toward London. The king, Edward, could not raise an army in his own country and ended up fleeing with a favorite. They were captured and killed. This is a catastrophic failure of kingship. It was not caused by any famine, pestilence, or a devastating invasion by a foreign power. It was just that the nobles hated him, his favorites, and his wretched administration.
There were more wicked kings and less mentally competent kings, but it is hard to see that any of them did a worse job of day to day kingship.
‘Bottom’ line indeed, I see what you did there
Thanks for doing this documentary. I’ve been looking for one on Edward II for a long time! This is great and very extensively done.
Man, I feel so bad for the guy. I'm 38 minutes in and already I get the feeling he didn't want to be a king. He just wanted to live a life of nobility while living with his lover/BFF/homie Gaveston. Another classic case of a man thrusted into a realm of power he did not want, but had no choice.
😀😀 he was incompetent, and yes he wanted to be a king, why does leftist think gays or any other minority Group in the west today are all good? Guess what gays can be horrible people to him cheating to isabella with a man is the same as he cheating isabella with a woman
@@PaperMakersAdeludedbroad Allegedly
@@PaperMakersAdeludedbroad He might've been bisexual or straight.
The defenstration scene in braveheart was hillarious.
@@PaperMakersAdeludedbroad That dosen't make strong kids, as we say in my language. ( ça fait pas des enfants forts )
He was, like many monarchs throughout history, the wrong person for the job.
And politicians lol
He seemed to be fond of the common man given his pass time hobbies. If only he had been born at a different era and had a more scholarly education he would have been a able leader
Not the worst, that crown is given to Henry VIII
Unfortunately he was born into the wrong family rather than being hired.
Its weird how leaders vary from one extreme to another.
Absolutely outstanding. Great effect, time and research went into this. Extremely educational. Very much appreciated. Thank you.
My husband loves these videos, I can't get my phone from him til he watches all of them, so I subscribe to the channel and now I love 💘 it ,keep up the awesome work 🖐💣🤘👍👋
Thank you! Henry VIII on Friday!
Thanks 😊
Is he not allowed his own phone?
@@kajenbop Asking same question
Not allowed his own phone ???
Edward I was a king you respect, but don't like.
Edward II was a king you like, but don't respect.
Edward III was a king you both like and respect.
That is a good summary of all three Edwards. Like hella accurate. Though Edward II was not much liked either
Nobody likes Edward II.
Edward III and Elizabeth I -best English Monarchs.
Henry V would want a say in that
Edward IV wasn’t bad either and if you want to go back even further look at King Æthelstan and how he united England and made Scotland and Wales his tribute Kingdoms.
We have a saying in the UK - "Horses for courses" - Edward II was the wrong horse (most definitely unsuited for the job).
Bit like Boris Johnson!
That's interesting.
“My father is deceased; come, Gaveston, and share the kingdom with thy dearest friend.” My all time favourite line from the English literature.
Edward II was for sure one of the most tragic figures in the history of British monarchy. He just loved the wrong people.
“Y. Mor. Why should you love him whom the world hates so?
K. Edw. Because he loves me more than all the world.”
Really, I don't think so, as I know that this one was very special, so special that a King would bring his body back to his England, to be buried secretly!
I always put Edward II at bottom even below John (btw, SOME English ruler needs to be ballsey enough to name their first child 'John') but John was cruel to ppl and nit a great king. Edward.... Never seemed 'cruel' perse. Just loyal to his (poorly chosen) friend and bad at ruling
Apart from Edward II as a person and king, I always think of the fact, that he was his parents' 4th son. 4TH!! Just consider, from the royal perspective the pressure of not only getting an heir, but of producing enough heirs, that 1 could live till adulthood to inherit. It must have been a constant desperate fight with fate. And then from the human perspective, the parents, whether royals or ordinary ppl, who lose so many children. I cannot even begin to contemplate the pain of losing 1 child, let alone several.
It was different back then death was so common, that why they had so many kids incase they died, but the poor had kids so they could work the land
Nice new graphics. I really like them. Another high quality video.
Very detailed. I thought I knew the whole story. I learned a great deal from your comprehensive presentation.
I’m sorry but I think people go to great lengths to deny the possibility of a romantic aspect to the relationship between Piers and Edward. While I honestly think there wasn’t anything sexual between Edward and the Despensers, it is clear he loved Piers above anyone else. At his and his wife’s coronation, Piers was wrongly and insultingly given pride of place and his coat of arms displayed besides the king’s instead of Isabella’s, and during the whole ceremony the king only paid attention to him. He also gave him Isabella’s best jewels and gifts. Even if they never consummated their relationship because of the prejudice of the time Edward truly loved Piers, he tore his kingdom apart to avenge him, he was his love, his soulmate.
Still. People still refuse to accept that most logical conclusion.
@@LeCrenn fitting that England's worst king was part of the alphabet mob.
Interesting show. I think like all of us he was a human being, with human
flaws - but with also showed periods of greatness, love for his family and friends. Alas being human he came too with weaknesses and whilst born into the position of King in an era of great violence, made many mistakes. It was his human weaknesses and mistakes that got him dethroned and perhaps killed. It was very good to see a documentary that succeeded in being fair and unbiased. Thankyou.
Bollocks, he was Sadam and Hitler nightmare who could not stand to let incumbent Welsh, Scottish Princes and Countries be anything except under his ego-centric control. He should be recognized as a tyrant and NOTHING great about his "rule". Fuck Edward and his wet son.
I think he was selfish and unwise. Keeping a country in almost constant rebellion is not very good kingship. He showed very poor judgement in his favourites, and was almost certainly too fond of his own entertainment. Insulting his new wife's family (after marrying her to gain allies) was stupid and proved that he was not very savvy. Seems like a disaster of a reign to me. Did he actually accomplish anything of note ? Winning battles against his own subjects does not count.
He was a bozos
British geneticist have stated that it is almost impossible not to be descended from Edward the third if you're of partial British descent. I myself have found two lines in which I descend from Edward the third (I also found a couple of other lines which leads back to siblings of his). However I would be intrigued to know if there is a direct male line of his which survives to day. As in people who's direct paternal line lead back to him
Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort, is the direct patrilineal descendent of Edward through an illegitimate line.
Edward III must've been 'busy' 😏😂
This is amazing. This is one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen. Well done . Extremely detailed and well spoken.
Thank you... we really appreciate your kind comment
Give it back! Damn your eyes!
It's interesting that Isabella's actions were wrong and right at the same time... Edward II wasn't a good fit for King but Edward III was... Bad actions (towards her husband) that ended up doing some good (to her son and England)!
OMG I love this channel! Always bringing great videos with such effort! ❤
You’ve done Edward I, II, and III. Now it’s time for Edward IV
YES! War of the Roses Champion Edward IV!
@@rogerkearns8094 yeah, you were. You got lucky and were the last one standing. You only kept your crown (my crown) because you married my daughter. I'm the undefeated King of England. Victorious in every battle i commanded, the best general of the Wars of the Roses. Everything your dynasty has done was built on my achievements. I brought back England from the brink of collapse under Henry VI. I brought law and order back to England. I defeated the combined forces of the Lancastrians and the man who made me king. You're just what was left, not the best.
Edward IV was a legend
@@henryvkingofenglandandfran7220 yeah he was. Its tragic his dynasty did not survive. Ironically, the subsequent Tudor and Stuart dynasties also failed in the male line and the founders of each dynasty only survived through daughters. The Tudor Dynasty through Margaret Tudor daughter of Henry VII who married a Stuart King, and the Stuart Dynasty through James I's youngest daughter Elizabeth. Basically the current Royal Family onoy descends from the founding York, Tudor and Stuart monarchs.
Do it I like it I'm Vaegeta Targaryen 1st
Edward had half-brothers not step brothers. Step siblings share no blood, just United by marriage. He and his half-brothers shared the same father. Otherwise, thank you. You are very good at these.
Thank you for an incisive documentary. I've always thought that Isabella was incredibly patient with Edward II -- until he tried to give lands belonging to the Prince of Wales to the Despencers. Once the patrimony of the future Edward III was threatened, Isabella rebelled. And yes: I do think that Edward II was one of the worst English kings, along with John & Henry VIII.
She was definitely long suffering, she put up with Edwards abuse for a long time.
@@leonieromanes7265 I fully agree! Isabella's turning point was when her son's inheritance was threatened. As the Prince of Wales *needed* to have his properties & rights in order to maintain his position as heir to the throne, Edward's transfer of said properties may have seemed like a signal that the *Despencers* would be the new heirs. No wonder that Isabella rebelled!
Henry really wasn't that bad.
@@michaelward9167 how so?
@@TheAljnaz as king.
Great work! Now we have the medieval Edward trilogy.
They also have Bruce and Wallace which surrounds this period. I love how they document large periods of time from varying perspectives and historical context covering vasts amount of information. You find that too with the world war II series of the heads of states from the US, UK, Germany and Russia. Endless entertainment and education. It's great.
Absolutely brilliant documentary. Thank you
I think Edward II was just vulnerable and distracted. It's like he had too many people upon him all up in his ear which couldn't really give him the strength to lead the kingdom properly. To me it lead him to become irresponsible. It's a good thing his son took over before his death. Great documentaries! I really enjoy them.
Thankyou for mentioning the evidence that goes against the long held idea that Edward II was killed with a red-hot iron poker. Your research is very thorough
Edward II may not have been the best king of England, but he was certainly one of the most human. His upbringing and character formed him into an unusually sensitive, emotional, and perhaps empathetic king for that time. The personal interest he showed in all his diverse subjects urged him to freely mix socially with laborers, shipwrights, and others of inferior social status from whom he should have been receiving deference. From what we know of human sexuality today, it is easily possible for him to have had sexual relationships with both his wife and his male favorites. Unfortunately, such liberal social preferences and too frequent disregard for traditions and behaviors expected of him, did not endear him to either the common people or the nobility whose support he depended upon. Considering all the facts we can know, Edward II was probably not a bad king, nor a bad person. However, his personal desires, political affiliations, and tendency to make emotionally-charged decisions rather than rational ones were all clearly detrimental to his kingship. Sadly, they would would eventually prove to be fatal as well.
So he was a man before his time
I think that by far the worst king was Henry Vlll, wickedly cruel, during his reign there were over eighty thousand executions of the people mostly of those who disagreed with him over rights and religion.
@@richardgledhill6801 I don't think he was the worst. Besides without him there wouldn't be a Queen Elizabeth I
Well said!
@@Argos-xb8ek Re: Man before his time. I wanted to say that, but was worried it sounded too cliché.
Really cool documentary! Love the images and illustrations
Yessss!!! Love this! Btw can you maybe do Richard the Lionheart and/or Henry II? just a humble request from a measly peasant 🙂
Henry I and William the Conqueror are bosses!
You can’t do Richard without going back to Matilda, Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Richard’s brothers.
It’s more like “I, Claudius” than a one-off undertaking.
@@mikereger1186 Eleanor of Aquitaine was crazy powerful. Game of thrones Queen of thorns.
Fantastic video! Thank you for doing these for us. I have to say King VI is right up there.
Really love this documentary. Very well made!!!! Thanks!!!
In terms of the worst monarchs, Stephen there too. Userped the throne from Matilda, he failed to secure leading to a disastrous civil war and he didn't even manage to get his heir to succeed him. Gets overlooked a bit.
Rich CCR - other candidates:
John.
Aethelred II “The Unready” (genocide on his own people).
Charles I.
Henry VI (let his Queen rip England into factionalism and civil war).
Henry VII (mass blackmailer).
Mary (religious murder).
Edward “The Confessor” (made a complete mess of succession, factionalism and favourites).
Edward IV (married stupidly, reignited factionalism and revolt).
Richard I (financial ruin, never home).
Mike Reger You left out Richard II.
Mango T - mainly because I know less about him than most of the others.
Although there’s a massive question mark over what Bolingbroke did... was it justified to usurp the crown, the way he did?
Mike Reger 🤔. Well, he basically disinherited Bolingbroke, confiscating all his lands. Which was a huge chunk, he WAS Richard’s first cousin, after all. So, Bolingbroke really had nothing to lose. I would say he was justified.
If it wasn’t for Bolingbroke we never would of had Monmouth
When your mom and her boyfriend plot to have your dad overthrown and killed then use you as a puppet ruler.
Meanwhile, Tsar Peter the Great, turned Russia into a dominant European power exactly because of his love of boat building and engineering...
Kind of weird when you hear that it was considered "foul" to be interested in what would actually drive the kingdom forward :(
Excellent point
This is pretty cool, and a nice interpretation. He seems like a nice guy, but he clearly disliked the job and his naive lack of interest in courtly intrigue seems to have been his undoing.
Yhea, the situation was so unbearable he couldn’t have a close friend that all of his vassals started bitching about.
Based on the video thumbnail, I never knew Edward II was the ancestor of Jacksepticeye.
I thought the same. Looks like a douchier version of Jack.
William Wright good one lol
Edward II's biggest problem was a lack of character - both in instilling loyalty and when faced by desperation. But he wasn't characteristically malicious like John or wilfully neglectful like Richard I, both of whom were not only worse kings but out-and-out traitors to their own father Henry II. Read some writing on history instead of watching docos. According to Dickens, King John was "a miserable brute," Henry VIII was "a blot of blood and grease," and Henry III was "a mere shadow of a king at all times." They were all worse than Edward II, but that's not saying much.
I disagree. Not the worst person to be king, but the worst king.
The drawings are magnificent.
Thank you! Cheers!
Nice video! Congratulations on your subscribers. It's worth it
That honor belongs to John...he was a monster...
Edward's boyfriend "borrowing" his wife's jewelry AND out-fashioning her in said jewels was indeed the last ducking straw. XD
It's a shame though, to be g@y/bi, and born into the wrong country and century's going to automatically be sheer agony. x_x
Why the world just couldn't (still can't) accept a reality of king/king, or queen/queen is mind boggling to me. Almost most of royals were somewhat illegitimate/took the crown/were descended from people who stole the crown anyways. An adopted kid, or surrogate pregnancy would have been nothing.
The interesting thing about hereditary monarchy is that you never know what you are going to get. Edward 11 was clearly, especially unsuited for medieval kingship. However Richard 11, Henry V1, Richard 111 and Charles 1 were all monarchs whose hapless reigns also precipitated major crises.
It really exposes the fallacy of "royal blood" being superior and all that drooling blather.
@@LuvBorderCollies Border Collies are beautiful dogs
I need a flowchart for the titles and relations. 😂 Despite my shortcomings, I enjoyed this immensely. Very well done! I've subscribed and look so forward to learning more about my ancestors. Love to all...❤
By far the best thing on this king. For untangling all the complexities of homophobia, tolerance, gender dismissal toward women (misplaced in this case), and court intrigue, this documentary can be praised for not flinching.
brilliant! nice work mate
Even if he was a "sodomite" he still did his kingly duties and gave England one of the greatest kings of all time Edward III.
@George Job I've never understood why civilians were slaughtered in war even when one side had been more powerful. I won't say won' because nobody actually wins a war - one side just crawls out less devastated that the other.
William Wallace was the father. Didn't you see Braveheart? Just kidding.
@@viktoriaironpride4977 I’m Scottish & I’ve had to correct a few ppl on that. That’s not the worst of it. They would’ve taken Isabella hostage & negotiated with the French as well as having ALL their Scottish prisoners freed. We didn’t get taught Scottish history in Scottish schools so braveheart as historically inaccurate as it was, git Scottish ppl a lot more interested in their history. If you were brought up as a Nationalist you were expected to know every king & Queen since Kenneth McAlpine & learn English history in school. It was grueling then but grateful for it now
Did you even watch the video? There is a reason why Edward II is called the worst king of England; he allowed his homosexual favorites to control State Policy to the detriment of the State!
@@StevenTorrey it was alleged by medieval chronicles that Edward ii & Piers Gaveston were lovers then rumours were later reinforced by Christopher Marlowe’s play in late 16th century: Edward II.
According to Pierre Chaplais (French lawyer & historian) they had more of an adoptive brotherhood relationship. Other historians such as JS Hamilton point out that the men’s sexuality was not at the core for the reasons the nobles were grieved. They were more worried about Gaveston’s exclusive access to the royal patronage.
Homosexual or not he gave England his son & heir who turned out to be a much more successful king than his father.
That channel is so easy to understand as non english speaker. The pronunciation is perfect.
great narration, as usual Christopher
Thank you very much Paul! I'm glad the narration was satisfactory ☺️
Glad to see the Edward series rounded out so perfectly here, I always thought Edward II had the most interesting story of the three. I never fully bought into the homosexuality theory pushed so heavily on other documentaries, nor did I know all roads led back to Christopher Marlowe.
"I never fully bought", you know, gay people existed back then, so did bisexual people. Seems like you have an agenda.
I enjoy your content, thank you for taking the time to create them and then sharing them with us! 👍🏼❤️🙏🏼😎
I'd say Richard II was the worst. Bit of a nutter, he was. Nothing I've read of Edward II strikes me as him being a cruel man, just misguided.
He has a lot in common with his grandfather Henry III in his favoritism and occasional incompetence.
Rich CCR I’d agree with that. And John was pretty terrible, he was downright sadistic.
Definitely well said to you both, shame for Henry III though as even though he was on the throne for a very long time it's clear to us that he wasn't the one making the decisions and actually ruling our lovely Country as he was more of a yes man to his nobles, still though least he wasn't a cruel man and as you both said him and Edward II weren't cruel to their people either. Absolutely love our history man this channel always does amazing videos👍☺️
omg yes!!! can you only have this voice actor/ narrator do these videos. he and this content is amazing.
I don't know, I don't think anyone could be worse than Æþelred Unræd.
Fun fact, Edward is burried 2 minutes away from me.
I'd like to go to Gloucester Abbey
@Poddy dodger Unræd doesn't mean unready, that's a later mistranslation that somehow became popular.
Æþelræd means 'wise counsel' and 'Unræd' means ill-advised. It's meant to be a sarcastic/ironic nickname and a play on words. Wise-counsel the ill-advised. He had pretty terrible people around him advising him and suffered from traitors on more than one occasion, so he had that name bestowed upon him (though nobody likely ever uttered it to his face...)
But is it really him????
Ummmm
dodger yepper
I did
I love to learn about English history
Can you imagine the stories we dont know about
Anyway I think the folks across the pond are so cool
Franklin county Va.
U.S.A.
Do you live at the bottom of Westgate Street?
That Gaveston dude must have been quite a man and must have given Edward much happiness and fun. Marrying a woman and fathering children does not negate homosexual relationships. Look at modern times.
I have just got to 29:18 and I believe Piers Gaveston has made a fatal error. Don't outshine the master.
9:50 “Hey I think the king was gay”
“Wtf dude you can’t say that”
“Ok fine, the king wasn’t gay... but his boyfriend was lmaoooo 😎”
King John (Lackland) was so bad the English never had another King named John
For amateur history buffs who, like me, have trouble telling the first three Edwards apart, I recommend this little ditty from the brilliant BBC show, Horrible Histories: "Edward One hated Scots / A red hot poker killed Ed Two / That must have hurt him lots / Ed the Third was a chivalry nerd / And began the Hundred Years War."
So thorough. Thank you!
Loving this! New subscriber here! Im excited about your channel! You give amazing details! 💕 Thank you!
Thanks for subbing!
I thought King John was considered the worst King of England which is why there has only ever been king named "John".
That what trying say King John is top 5 worst king of england
What about King John Un
Give thanks for this great upload
It's a nice thought to imagine Edward lived out his days after 1327 away from danger. Yes, he was flawed but aren't we all. A very sympathetic and emotional man - born to rule but far ahead of his time. Thanks for the video.
I am here cause of my favourite book series, Druon: Accursed Kings. Its a really accurate historical fiction from the death of the Templar leaders until Edward III claims the french throne to himself. Love the part about roger mortimer and Isabella disposing Edward II only to be disposed by Edward III. This gives more historical background and accuracy
Sounds like he wanted to be a tradie rather than a king.
Well done. Im proud to be a greatgrandson of Sir James Douglas. The Black Douglas to King Edward lll
Thank you, finally a balanced & sensible biography of Edward. Our times make so many false assumptions of the past
Thoroughly enjoyed
I enjoyed this very much, thank you!
I am a direct descendent of Roger Mortimer! Great video
Regardless of how you feel about Edward II as a king, you can't say his story isn't good drama
Most of the details in these videos are done very well. But this isn't the first video where I've heard half-siblings mistakenly called step-siblings, which causes confusion (particularly in cases of dynastic succession). I hope such confusion will be avoided in future episodes.
“He Thatched roofs” 😄
Even today construction guys are hot. That's why 🤫
Discarding all of the SPECULATION over the previous centuries about his personal life, big and small, one flaw stands as a monument representing all others, loyalty. He either couldn't see or blatantly crossed the line of Loyalty to Country above Loyalty to Friends
Excellent. Subscribed.
Can't believe you found a colour photo of Piers Gaveston amazing 😉😅
So no one is going to mention or question the reason why he spent most of his time bailing out his "brother" giving him lands and titles?
He is talented, gifted and competent but he failed because of hesitation, bad entourage, bad evaluation of situations and circumstances, bad advisers and bad luck.
It appears to me that Edward ll was simply corrupted by his own power and status and assumed that he could behave in ways that he knew would offend other high born people in England. His affection for his favorites seems to have ruled his emotions instead of making wise political alliances. He was not the homosexual weakling portrayed in the movie Braveheart. However, he clearly was a colossal failure as a king who squandered his power due to his own haughtiness.
It's funny how the "strong king gene" skipped a generation in the Edwards.
It sometimes double skips. William II was the first skip. Then King Stephen. Then John and Henry III. Then Edward II. Then Richard II. Then Henry VI (and you can argue for Henry IV as well), then Richard III
Bad times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create bad times. And so the cycle continues...
Lol! True, but then a lot were inbred too
Jack Sainthill I think on the bright side Edward VIII was sooo bad he covered the bad for the next two monarchs. Charles and William could have us back on course with bad-good
Amazing documentary as always
Glad you enjoyed it
Thx dude, this is narrated way better than everything Else on TH-cam about Eddy II
I note you do consider Edwards survival beyond 21/9/1327. Certainly as people like Ian Mortimer have done a great deal of research into Edward of Carnarvon's survival. The things that convinced me were three fold.
1) Why did the Pope entertain someone claiming to be Edward for a fortnight! As the Pope personally knew Edward so an imposter would have been easily identified.
2) The Fieschi family were not just mere "priests" but very significant in the Avignon Papacy. Certainly Manuele Fieschi was very close to the Pope. Also he was Edward's kinsmen.
Also as Prof Mortimer points out the Fieschi letter must have been written by someone who was remarkably well informed and in all probability the original source of the information would have been Edward himself.
3) Edward III went to absurd and extremely expensive lengths to purge the English archives to hide what had exactly happened to his father.
In all likelihood Edward died in northern Italy in the early spring of 1343. That would go some way to explain the curious banner Edward III displayed at St Albans that Easter " It Is As It Is" what exactly did he mean by that? Hmm I suspect that it was a signal to inform those who actually knew the truth that Edward of Carnarvon really had died.
Certainly a very strange tale indeed.
Excellent video thanks!
I think ultimately he gave his adversaries to much leeway, in that he gambled their loyalty to the crown would outwait their personal dislike for him and his confidants! In order to maintain his power, his father would have executed those who exhibited disloyalty, where Edward the 2nd seem to forgive his wrong doers! Politics then and now is a blood sport, not fit for the weak of heart or those with humanity at their core! I hate to say it, but Good hearted people rarely succeed in the affairs of state! It takes cunning and ruthlessness, like in a dog fight, even the noble dog is trying to chew the others throat out! Such is the human condition!
"However..." has become my favorite word.
Good narration!
Controversial king. The origins of the modern Anglo-American legal system are in the Fourteenth Century. Edward I was called 'the English Justinian". Relevant to us in 2020, the Black Plague came after Edward II was deposed and Edward III passed legislation to deal with the Plague, which he did by putting upper limits on the pay laborers could receive. This led to the Peasant's Revolt during the reign of Richard II. It was led by Watt Tyler and John Ball. Richard II gave the Peasant's concessions so the establishment had to overthrow him. So you see the origins of the modern legal system. They wealthy establishment always lands on its feet. Both in England and the countries it settled, like Canada, the United States, Australia. In South Africa they produced a wealthy English speaking Black elite to take charge. New Zealand seems to be the only place where Watt Tyler and John Ball may have won.
In all honesty while watching this it’s hard to see him as the worst king. I mean for once you hear of an English King who actually filled the treasure vault, he also tossed down many rebellions and bested the second most powerful man in England at the time with Lancaster. The only issue that he really had was the disrespect he had for the other nobels, and the favoritism to upstarts while they may have served him well he could of solved a lot of his problems by tossing a bone to his Nobels every once in a while. Also not getting destroyed by there own incompetence against the Scott’s would have also helped.
I don't think you can find a bigger contrast from father and son in English Royal history than Edward I to II.
Edward II to Edward III is similar
@@peterzilahi1805 In terms of quality of reigns definitely but I'm also talking about levels of cruelty and personality.
Henry II and John? Or do they have to be contiguous?
@@MrBulky992 That's another good one. I said father to son so yes that would count. One of the best to the absolute worst.
Too bad the oldest living son was crowned and not the oldest child, maybe Elenora would’ve done better as monarch.