WI: Edward II never meets Piers Gaveston?

Yeah, but whoever he "meets" could be important or noteworthy, perhaps - this could be an interesting PoD down the line. Perhaps he finds himself a competent lover with clever ideas?
 
I have read many convincing arguments that speculate that Edward II was not a homosexual. If one looks that the primary sources that exist from the period it is usually devoid of homosexual remarks as well as no description of Edward dying by the red hot poker.

In my opinion it is very likely Piers was just a close friend and adviser of Edward, and that the Court disliked Piers due to him receiving favors over other nobles.

Edward II failures is seen replayed again in Richard II, and Henry VI, and, to some degree, Edward IV, in that whenever the monarch began to favor one consular over most others the result is the nobility killing the consular, or the King.
 
I have read many convincing arguments that speculate that Edward II was not a homosexual. If one looks that the primary sources that exist from the period it is usually devoid of homosexual remarks as well as no description of Edward dying by the red hot poker.

You have not been reading Historian Ian Mortimer have you? :p
 
I have read many convincing arguments that speculate that Edward II was not a homosexual. If one looks that the primary sources that exist from the period it is usually devoid of homosexual remarks as well as no description of Edward dying by the red hot poker.

In my opinion it is very likely Piers was just a close friend and adviser of Edward, and that the Court disliked Piers due to him receiving favors over other nobles.

Edward II failures is seen replayed again in Richard II, and Henry VI, and, to some degree, Edward IV, in that whenever the monarch began to favor one consular over most others the result is the nobility killing the consular, or the King.

It is perfectly plausible that he was not gay, but it is also perfectly plausible he was, if one considers just how close he was to the man.
 
It's worth remembering that while the Piers Gaveston affair seriously weakened Edward, he wasn't overthrown because of it. Indeed, Roger Mortimer had actually been allied with Edward during that conflict; it was Edward's later "friendship" with Hugh Despenser the Younger that triggered the final overthrow.
 
It's worth remembering that while the Piers Gaveston affair seriously weakened Edward, he wasn't overthrown because of it. Indeed, Roger Mortimer had actually been allied with Edward during that conflict; it was Edward's later "friendship" with Hugh Despenser the Younger that triggered the final overthrow.

But if there is a smarter companion that isn't killed, the Despencer incident doesn't happen.

I have read many convincing arguments that speculate that Edward II was not a homosexual. If one looks that the primary sources that exist from the period it is usually devoid of homosexual remarks as well as no description of Edward dying by the red hot poker.

In my opinion it is very likely Piers was just a close friend and adviser of Edward, and that the Court disliked Piers due to him receiving favors over other nobles.

Edward II failures is seen replayed again in Richard II, and Henry VI, and, to some degree, Edward IV, in that whenever the monarch began to favor one consular over most others the result is the nobility killing the consular, or the King.

I think he was gay, though I'm biased. Either way, who the King's favorite is could make a huge difference. Given Edward I and the barons, Edward's favorite needs to be clever enough to ingratiate himself with the Court and (in retrospect) the Queen.
 
I'm not going to say Edward II was a sodomite, but I'm going to toss out some interesting bits from the book The Plantagenets that make him sound a little light in his armor, if you know what I mean.

1)At Edward II and Isabella II's marriage banquet, talking and laughing with Piers Galveston and neglecting his bridge, and would later give the best of the queens jewels and wedding presents to Galveston.
2) Isabella II, in the Life of Edward II "Someone has come between my husband and myself and is trying to break that bond; I declare that I will not return until this intruder is removed, but discarding my marriage garment, shall put on the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.
 
Edward II

I'm not going to say Edward II was a sodomite, but I'm going to toss out some interesting bits from the book The Plantagenets that make him sound a little light in his armor, if you know what I mean.

1)At Edward II and Isabella II's marriage banquet, talking and laughing with Piers Galveston and neglecting his bridge, and would later give the best of the queens jewels and wedding presents to Galveston.
2) Isabella II, in the Life of Edward II "Someone has come between my husband and myself and is trying to break that bond; I declare that I will not return until this intruder is removed, but discarding my marriage garment, shall put on the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.

I don't like the term "sodomite". It is very antiquated. But I don't think that Edward II was a very capable king regardless of his relationship with Gaveston.
 
I'm not going to say Edward II was a sodomite, but I'm going to toss out some interesting bits from the book The Plantagenets that make him sound a little light in his armor, if you know what I mean.

1)At Edward II and Isabella II's marriage banquet, talking and laughing with Piers Galveston and neglecting his bridge, and would later give the best of the queens jewels and wedding presents to Galveston.
2) Isabella II, in the Life of Edward II "Someone has come between my husband and myself and is trying to break that bond; I declare that I will not return until this intruder is removed, but discarding my marriage garment, shall put on the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.

Sodomite, lol, bit antiquated there.
 
I don't like the term "sodomite". It is very antiquated. But I don't think that Edward II was a very capable king regardless of his relationship with Gaveston.

Look, I think any child they adopted together was entitled to primogeniture so I'll call him what I please.
 
...Really though, sodomite? Are we a Victorian era legal code? :p

We're talking about a medieval king, and I don't think modern sexual orientation terms map onto the past; he clearly wasn't gay by modern standards, since he had kids, and it feels weird calling him bisexual. So rather than project your contemporary terms on him, I will use the same ones that primary sources from his own culture used. Why ya gotta be so judgmental?
 
Top