Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Fathers and Sons

I have often thought it interesting that a strong father can sire a weak and ineffectual son. This is particularly true of the Kings of England, who fairly abound in strong fathers and weakling sons. For the average person a weak son may be a perpetual nuisance and a continual drain on the purse strings, but nothing to worry about. However, a weak king, particularly in those days when kingship meant power, was a real pain in the proverbial.


Perhaps the best example of this father/son phenomena is Edward I and his son Edward II. Edward Longshanks rightly takes his place as one of the strongest Kings of England. Of course the Welsh and the Scots have rather less kindly opinions of this King. Just read Edith Pargeter's "Sons of Gwynedd" series, or Nigel Tranter's "Robert the Bruce". After all it was Edward 1 who, having dispatched Llewellyn, the last Prince of Wales, held the new born Edward up to the Welsh and said "Behold, here is your new Prince of Wales" not only showing how sensitive he was to other peoples feelings, but also starting a tradition of naming heirs to the throne the Prince of Wales. Edward got his other nickname "Hammer of the Scots" because of his penchant for meddling in their affairs - usually with an army in tow and while Edward I was alive, Robert the Bruce spent a fair amount of time on the run and communing with spiders.

Edward II was made of less fiery stuff. Not that he lacked courage, but he didn't seem to get things right. Firstly he lost Scotland at the battle of Bannockburn, which probably caused his dad to roll over in his grave. Secondly he had a penchant for favourites who were soundly disliked by powerful people. His first favourite, Piers Gaveston, was murdered, but he recovered from the loss and later became "good friends" with Hugh Despenser. Now Edward's queen, Isabella, hated Hugh, and decided to get her own back by taking a lover herself. This was the devious Roger Mortimer. Together they deposed Edward, forced him to abdicate, and took over the Regency in the name of his son, Edward III. Despite all their subsequent efforts - starvation, unsanitary conditions, concentration camp tortures - Edward II stubbornly refused to die. He was even briefly rescued. So there was nothing for it. They murdered him. With sadistic delight and some evil sense of commentary, they stuck a red hot poker up his nether regions. It is said that the agonising screams of the King can still be heard echoing around the halls of Berkley Castle, where the deed was done.




Of course Edward III despatched Mortimer and sent his mother into "retirement" as soon as he was able and ended up having one of the longest reigns in English history. But people have always got to carp and so it is said of Edward, that he had too many sons for England’s good. So it was down the track that his quarrelling descendants ended up having a little party called the War of the Roses. This came to a head in the reign of Henry VI. Henry was only nine months old when his father, Henry V of Agincourt fame, died. He grew up to be a gentle and sensitive man, who suffered a fair bit of illness. Some said he may have been mentally ill, and I guess any man who was more interested in sending his own soul to heaven, instead of despatching others to meet their maker, could be considered mad by the standards of the time. Barons could point out that the French were still waiting and there were more Joan of Arc's to kill, but Henry didn't care. In fact he preferred to pray and allow others to care for his kingdom. Battles for power ensured, especially with the House of York and Henry was finally defeated and sent to the Tower. He was murdered there: struck down while saying his prayers. It is said that while he lay in state, his wounds still bled as a testimony to this horrible and sacrilegious deed. In medieval times some believed that a murdered man's wounds bled in the presence of the murderer, so perhaps this is poetic licence on the part of the chronicles. If not, then the only other explanation is that the poor man wasn't dead - only in a massive coma. Makes you shudder to think doesn't it.

1 comment:

  1. There is a lot thought in this and very interesting as well.

    ReplyDelete