Edward III (was: Actual William Wallace....)
HAROL...@hq.doe.gov
A few quibles with Randy's timeline-
>To repat my earlier post on the actual time line:
>1272: William Wallace born.
>1298-99: William Wallace leads the Scottish Revolt.
>1299: He is named Protector of Scotland, and Knighted.
>1305: William Wallace is betrayed to, captured by, and executed by
>Edward Longshanks.
>1306: Robert The Bruce is declared King of Scotland.
>1307: Edward Longshanks dies, Edward II crowned.
>1308: Edward II marries, Isabella, age 12 at the time of her >
>marriage.
>1314: Edward II loses at Bannockburn to Robert The Bruce. Edward II
>subsequently declines further into debauchery. The Scottish Revolt
>ends.
Of all of the consequences of Bannockburn, I would not have given
Edward's decline further (if possible) into debauchery as the chief.
Nor do I think the Scottish revolt ended because of Edward's antics
("why fight when we can watch Hard Copy?") :-)
>1326: Isabella revolts against Edward II. Just as in the film, she
>despised him utterly. Edward II is imprisoned. Isabella is de facto
>ruler ofEngland.
>1327: Edward II is executed, many believe at Isabella's order.
No. Edward II is murdered in the night (fairly nastily). Officially,
he dies of "natural causes." Significantly, he "abdicated" in favor
of his heir, Edward III, prior to his death.
>Edward III, the illegitimate son of Isabella & her lover Roger
>Mortimer,
I must say this is the first time I've heard that. Most sources I
have read have attributed his parenthood to Ed II. Despite the fact
that Ed II was homosexual, I have always understood that he did his
duty by his family to produce an heir. Certainly the French would
have *loved* to prove Ed III was illegitimate. It would have made a
hell of a lot better bar than the Sallic law.
>is crowned. Roger Mortimer is named Regent, but Isabella retains
>control.
>1328: Edward III formally recognizes the legitimacy of the Scottish
>Kingdom. Robert the Bruce's son David is betrothed to Joanna,
>Edward III's sister.
>1330: Edward III revolts against his true father, Roger Mortimer,
I'm curious, why the stress on his paternity. More significantly, he
revolted against his regent and his mother whom, you note above, "ran
things."
>has him hanged, and becomes King of England for real.
Which makes a hell of a lot more sense if Ed III was the son of Ed II,
as I have always heard.
>He will rule until 1377, but the last decade of his reign, he is
>senile, and no longer effectively King.
Doesn't his last mistress end up stealing everything she can lay her
hands on after his death and race out the back door? Or am I thinking
of a different king?
> Isabella escapes to France, where she lives quietly until 1358.
>1332: Edward III breaks the treaty with Scotland, invades, and
>conquers it, sending David Bruce into exile in France with his
>Mother-in-Law, Isabella.
Later, of course, Ed III will persue his brother-in-law in exile by
trying to conquer all of France. :-) Ah, I can see the Mel Gibson
adaptation, Crecy was merely Ed III trying to pay back his mother and
brother-in-law. Hmmm......
>And, I *still* think it was truly great movie.
And I thought it was a so-so movie for reasons I have stated before,
Mel Gibson should spend less camera time on himself and concentrate on
pacing, development of characters not played by Mel Gibbson, and plot.
Yaakov
Jacquetta
hands on after his death and race out the back door? Or am I
thinking
of a different king?>>>>
was once of Queen Phillippa's ladies. Legend has it that Froissart wrote
his "Chronicles" to distract the dying queen from her husband's
philandering.
Jacquetta
Lynn Shaftic-Averill
"Empty What's Full, Fill What's Empty and Scratch Where It Itches"-
Eleanor Roosevelt. "Ooooo - that's the spot!" - me.
Randy Martens
>
> Greetings from Yaakov:
>
> A few quibles with Randy's timeline-
<snip of William Wallace Timeline>
> >1314: Edward II loses at Bannockburn to Robert The Bruce. Edward II
> >subsequently declines further into debauchery. The Scottish Revolt
> >ends.
>
> Of all of the consequences of Bannockburn, I would not have given
> Edward's decline further (if possible) into debauchery as the chief.
> Nor do I think the Scottish revolt ended because of Edward's antics
> ("why fight when we can watch Hard Copy?") :-)
No, the Scottish Revolt ended beacuse they (the Scots) had won, and Ed II didn't
have the spine to pursue the war further, when what he wanted to do was go back
to London and debauch some more.
> >1326: Isabella revolts against Edward II. Just as in the film, she
> >despised him utterly. Edward II is imprisoned. Isabella is de facto
> >ruler ofEngland.
> >1327: Edward II is executed, many believe at Isabella's order.
>
> No. Edward II is murdered in the night (fairly nastily). Officially,
> he dies of "natural causes." Significantly, he "abdicated" in favor
> of his heir, Edward III, prior to his death.
Entirely correct. The term "execute" was inappropriate. He was murthered
with a red hot poker. The abdication was forced by Isabella & Roger Mortimer
who convinced Pariment to accept Ed III as king.
> >Edward III, the illegitimate son of Isabella & her lover Roger
> >Mortimer,
>
> I must say this is the first time I've heard that. Most sources I
> have read have attributed his parenthood to Ed II. Despite the fact
> that Ed II was homosexual, I have always understood that he did his
> duty by his family to produce an heir. Certainly the French would
> have *loved* to prove Ed III was illegitimate. It would have made a
> hell of a lot better bar than the Sallic law.
I am digging for that reference - I posted this bit from memory. But barring
DNA tests, it may remain an open issue. The way I recall it is that Ed II
accepted Ed III as his legitimate heir, thus saving him (Ed II) the bother.
> >1330: Edward III revolts against his true father, Roger Mortimer,
>
> I'm curious, why the stress on his paternity. More significantly, he
> revolted against his regent and his mother whom, you note above, "ran
> things."
Yes, but Ed III may not have been aware that Roger Mortimer was his Genetic Father.
I am not clear on that point. Clearly, for various reasons, he hated his Mom,
as much as she had hated his father.
> >has him hanged, and becomes King of England for real.
>
> Which makes a hell of a lot more sense if Ed III was the son of Ed II,
> as I have always heard.
Or, if Ed II had simply accepted the boy as legitimate.
>
> >He will rule until 1377, but the last decade of his reign, he is
> >senile, and no longer effectively King.
>
> Doesn't his last mistress end up stealing everything she can lay her
> hands on after his death and race out the back door? Or am I thinking
> of a different king?
Don't know on this one.
> > Isabella escapes to France, where she lives quietly until 1358.
>
> >1332: Edward III breaks the treaty with Scotland, invades, and
> >conquers it, sending David Bruce into exile in France with his
> >Mother-in-Law, Isabella.
>
> Later, of course, Ed III will persue his brother-in-law in exile by
> trying to conquer all of France. :-) Ah, I can see the Mel Gibson
> adaptation, Crecy was merely Ed III trying to pay back his mother and
> brother-in-law. Hmmm......
Coming Soon: Woad Warrior II - Beyond the Channel ;-)
> >And, I *still* think it was truly great movie.
>
> And I thought it was a so-so movie for reasons I have stated before,
> Mel Gibson should spend less camera time on himself and concentrate on
> pacing, development of characters not played by Mel Gibbson, and plot.
>
> Yaakov
Granted, but what do you expect, since he directed the film too...
Cheers,
Andreas
--
| "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me ,for me!" - F. Mercury |