Queen Isabella: Treachery, Adultery, And Murder In Medieval England (2006) - Plot & Excerpts
Isabella of France, queen of England (c.1295-1358), has been unjustly vilified down the centuries as ‘the She-Wolf of France’ and condemned as wicked and unnatural by writers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries incensed that a woman could rebel against her lawfully wedded spouse. Nowadays, however, she is almost always portrayed as a long-suffering, put-upon victim of her neglectful husband who is miraculously transformed into an empowered feminist icon, striking a courageous blow for women everywhere by fighting back against marital oppression and finding an opportunity for self-fulfilment by taking a lover. Depictions of her reflect the way society currently views women who step outside the bounds of conventional behaviour rather than the real Isabella, who was neither a modern feminist and believer in sexual equality transplanted to the Middle Ages, nor an evil unfeminine caricature. Alison Weir's hagiography, oops I mean biography, of Isabella follows the usual modern trend, depicting Isabella as miraculously changing from a Great Helpless Victim to the Great Saviour of England in 1326/27. Her victimhood is hopelessly overstated here, as it always is these days, and Weir tries too hard to absolve Isabella of blame for her later actions, when she and her favourite Roger Mortimer ruled England for her young son from 1327 to 1330. There are numerous factual errors in the work, nothing too big and important, admittedly, but they made me grit my teeth. One example of Weir's endless whitewashing of her subject - and ohhh boy, does she go out of her way to whitewash her subject - is what she says about the widow and children of Hugh Despenser, her husband's 'favourite' whom Isabella and her paramour Mortimer executed in 1326. Weir claims that Isabella didn't harbour vindictive feelings towards them, which could hardly be further from the truth. In fact, Isabella had three of Despenser's young daughters forcibly veiled as nuns, in three separate convents, although they were only approximately 10, 7 and 4 years old at the time. This was a cruel and spiteful act that took place only 6 weeks after their father's execution; Alison Weir, unable to admit that her beloved Isabella did such a thing, states extremely disingenuously that the girls "later became nuns". Hmmmm. She also fails to notice, although the orders are in plain view on the Close Roll, that Isabella imprisoned eighteen children in Chester Castle in 1327 as hostages for the good behaviour of the townspeople, who had supposedly been 'disobedient and ill-behaved' towards her 14-year-son King Edward III. This doesn't tend to indicate that her motive for invading England and ending her husband's rule had much to do with her horror of his tyranny against his enemies and their wives and children, as Weir claims. The contemporary Brut chronicle, which says that in the late 1320s "the community of England began to hate Isabel the queen", is mysteriously not cited, though Weir finds plenty of space to quote the fawningly pro-Isabella/anti-Edward II Jean Froissart, even though he wasn't born till about 1337 and didn't visit England until 1366 and again in the 1390s, and is hopelessly unreliable for the 1320s. Weir misquotes a poem dating to 1346, calls it a 'chronicle' and pretends that it dates to 1326, as part of her evidence that Isabella was widely beloved in England at the time of her invasion that year and soon after. (As the poem's modern title is 'An Invective Against France, 1346' and was clearly written in the period shortly after the battle of Crecy that year, and as it refers to Isabella as 'the king's mother, Isabella' - which Weir has to misquote as 'Mother Isabella' to make it look like it belongs to 1326 - it's hard to see how this error was unintentional.)Weir's double standards are irksome. Hugh Despenser's presumed sexual dominance over Edward is proof of Edward's weakness and incapacity, and "perverted" to boot. However, Roger Mortimer's presumed sexual dominance over Isabella provides a convenient excuse for Isabella not to be responsible for any of her misdeeds, which can be blamed on the scapegoat Mortimer. There are in fact some unpleasant statements about Edward II's sexuality: "perverted" as stated above, a comment that his and Piers Gaveston's fathering children demonstrates that they were "capable of normal [i.e. heterosexual] sexual relations", the statement that Roger Mortimer was "everything Edward II was not: strong, manly, virile, unequivocally heterosexual...", the assumption that Edward's love of men was an 'affront' to Isabella's 'femininity', the sneering comment that when Edward consummated his marriage (and of course Weir has no idea when that happened, whatever she speculates) that he had "at last played the man." These don't always read as though Weir is describing medieval attitudes, and in fact I'm surprised that her publisher allowed them to pass. Edward II was described by at least half a dozen fourteenth-century chroniclers as enormously strong, tall, handsome, and powerful, "the strongest man of his realm," as the Scalacronica calls him. We also know that he was devoted to outdoor exercise and to crafts which demanded physical strength and dexterity. So why then does Weir say that Roger Mortimer was manly and strong, unlike Edward? Because gay or bi men are presumed to be feeble and weak and not 'manly' like the 'unequivocally heterosexual' Mortimer? It seemed to me as I read the book that Weir could not forgive Edward for not falling madly in love with the beautiful fabulous sexy Isabella, and as Weir seems to find it difficult to keep the subjects of her books at an emotional arm's length - I found her Mary, Queen of Scots book the same - she takes a remarkably negative, unfair and unkind view of Edward's non-heterosexuality. (Roger Mortimer, incidentally, was married when he had a relationship with Isabella, but any 'affront' to his wife of a quarter of a century is not mentioned.)We do learn near the beginning of the book that Isabella has - supposedly - been the victim of "sexual prejudices". This makes the fact that Edward II's non-heterosexuality is spoken of in such negative terms deeply ironic. Hypocritical, one might perhaps say.In her desperation to push Isabella's 'victimhood', Alison Weir assumes that any story which can be used to promote this is 100% true and factual: she wrongly takes as certain truth the story that Edward II abandoned Isabella at Tynemouth in 1312 while she was pregnant with their first child, in order to protect Piers Gaveston, conveniently failing to mention that this story appears in ONE chronicle written many years later and is flatly contradicted by the evidence of Isabella's own household accounts of 1312, which Weir must have read thoroughly as she cites them frequently. (See http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2... ; Seymour Phillips, Edward II (2010), p. 203, who states "the pregnant Isabella was not abandoned at Tynemouth; instead she left there with her husband on 5 May..." and points out that the chronicle which tells this tall tale confuses events of 1312 with another occasion when Isabella was in Tynemouth ten years later). If Weir was interested in writing a biography of Isabella as unbiased and accurate as possible and wasn't so desperate to blacken Edward II's name at every possible juncture, she would have mentioned the story but pointed out that it is certainly untrue, but oh no, she wants to portray Isabella as a helpless neglected victim of her nasty cruel gay unmanly husband, so in it goes as 'fact'. Weir - as do several other modern writers, in fairness - assumes that Edward deliberately and cruelly 'stole' their children from Isabella in 1324, totally failing to understand fourteenth-century royal norms of childcare, and overstates Isabella's supposed 'poverty' after Edward confiscated her lands in 1324; Isabella still enjoyed a large income.Weir forgets to mention the fact that Isabella and Mortimer's greed and theft of other people's lands was every bit as bad - in fact, quite a bit worse - than Edward II and Despenser's. She doesn't go into the fact that most of their allies had turned against them by 1330. She skates over their illegal appropriation of the £20,000 given to England by Robert Bruce, intended as compensation for the people of the north of England. She fails to point out that Isabella and Mortimer inherited a treasury of almost £80,000 from Edward II and left just £41 - not £41,000 or even £4100 - four years later; in short, they totally bankrupted the country. Weir doesn't point out that the income that Isabella granted herself in 1327 was the highest income anyone in England (except the kings) earned in the entire Middle Ages, an income 20% higher than Isabella's fabulously wealthy uncle Thomas of Lancaster received from five earldoms. And every time Isabella does something wrong, Weir jumps in to defend, excuse and justify her actions. (Or, preferably, ignores them altogether, as with the children imprisoned in 1327 and the little girls forced into taking lifelong vows as nuns simply because Isabella hated their dead father.) Needless to say, Edward II is entirely responsible and accountable for all his misdeeds, and so is Roger Mortimer. Isabella isn't. Weir doesn't defend Mortimer on the grounds that he was infatuated with Isabella. The impression is that women, unlike men, cannot be held responsible for their own actions; it's the men around them who 'make' them act that way. However, any of Isabella and Mortimer's actions which reflect well on them are assumed to be Isabella's alone, and lauded to the heavens. I find this attitude patronising and paternalistic.I'm also unconvinced that Isabella was as intelligent and astute as Weir (and some other modern historians) claim she was. She and Mortimer invaded England in 1326 supposedly to liberate its people from the greedy, cruel tyranny of Edward and Despenser, and then what did they do? Prove themselves far greedier and more tyrannical. They made all the mistakes of Edward and Despenser and added quite a few of their own. Their regime was so precarious that it took Isabella's son and a handful of his friends literally a few minutes at Nottingham to overthrow it; they were so unpopular that within two years of their invasion most of their allies, even Isabella's uncle the earl of Lancaster, had turned against them. Professor Seymour Phillips' magnificent biography of Edward II came out in 2010. Please read the Phillips book as well as, or preferably instead of, Weir's biased work (amusingly not included in Professor Phillips' bibliography, which runs to nearly 30 pages - that tells you his opinion of her book, doesn't it?). The Edward II biography is how a REAL historian does it; a historian who is steeped in knowledge of the fourteenth century and who isn't in the business of re-writing history, repeating lies about his subject's enemies and blackening their names to further his agenda. That's what this 'biography' of Isabella of France really is: history re-written with an obvious agenda, history that Weir thinks should have happened rather than what actually did, that seeks to redress the awful image with which Isabella was unjustly lumbered in the past and goes a million miles too far in the other direction.
I’m really not sure what to think of this book. Alison Weir attempts to tackle the subject of Isabella of France, Edward II’s French wife, and one of the more unusual queens in English history. Historically portrayed as an evil, grasping, adulterous woman who becomes a corrupt tyrant, Weir turns her subject into a feminist hero who saves England from Edward II. Weir admits early on she approached this not liking Isabella and wanted to portray her in a more sympathetic light, but by the end, she drank her own kook-aid. The problem with all of this is the simple fact that Isabella is all of the above and more. Like most historic figures (particularly powerful queens) she had her positive and negative aspects, and instead of confronting this fact, and examining the figure in a historical context, Weir’s narrative is all over the place without ever really going anywhere. She obviously has a bias towards Saint Isabella, but she doesn’t really ever offer firm proof for that conclusion, and as often as not, she actually undermines her own not-very-clearly-stated argument. The work starts out with Isabella the victim, married to evil Edward II, and utterly helpless as he bungles his rule of the country. Unfortunately Weir manages to skim over much of that in favor of the trendy historian game called ‘Guess what? I found some household account books.’ As a result, we hear much more about every time Isabella traveled a few miles and spent the night, or every time she spent 2p on stockings, than about the actual historical events at this point during English history, which is quite silly. This is the slowest part of the story. Then the book shifts to Isabella as the avenging angel who takes back the country, in theory for her son, but mostly (in my reading) because she wanted to try ruling. What follows is a long section in which every good aspect of ruling is Isabella’s wonderful reign, but every bad aspect (ie virtually everything) is somehow the fault of every man around Isabella. Around this time, it becomes painfully clear that Weir is somehow unironically painting a picture of a ruler much worse than Edward II while trying to make it sound like everything isn’t quite so bad as it sounds. Then at the age of 35, it’s all over, and the nearly three decades remaining of Isabella’s life are mostly skipped over as Weir readily admits she only found two account books. I recall learning in a freshman history class that, when you can’t find a source that neatly does your research for you (ie most of the time) then you look to other sources to piece together a picture of what happened. I guess Weir was absent that day.I was also a little surprised at some of the anti-gay language in this piece. Generally speaking, I’m very tolerant of this sort of thing in history and honestly can’t recall more than a few times in thousands of books that something actually made me pause, but I was particularly taken aback by the comment that when Edward consummated his marriage with Isabella, he ’finally played the man’. Really? Comments like this are sprinkled throughout this book. It isn’t all terrible, however. In spite of Weir’s aimless wanderings through the material and clear axe to grind, the work is more interesting than one would imagine. It isn’t great by any means, but it isn’t the worst history writing I’ve encountered. Even more impressively, there is considerable confusion and controversy as to when and how Edward II died—either murdered/naturally/due to ill treatment in England when he was supposed to have died, or as a monk in Europe decades later. Weir handles the whole thing very clearly and adeptly. She argues for the monk theory (which I personally find questionable) but manages to make discussions of this complicated issue the most well written and clearly communicated aspect of this whole adventure.
What do You think about Queen Isabella: Treachery, Adultery, And Murder In Medieval England (2006)?
This is the best of the Alison Weir books I have read, and the others are 5 star books as well. The beginning part develops the characters, the later part is more reportorial. Weir concludes with a summary of Isabella's role as a revolutionary.Isabella clearly defied the narrow female role of her times, but her revolutionary role, in my view, was accidental. It was not the confiscation of land of the nobles, nor the suspension of habeas corpus that motivated her, it was the suspension of her revenues and it seems to a lesser extent, her forced separation from the crown prince.She was clever in "networking" with the many who had grievances against Edward II, and wise in her pardoning her adversaries and paying her supporters. Weir guides us towards blaming Mortimer for the re-institution of confiscatory policies. I'm not convinced. As a woman in this time, Isabella surely needed male support and advice. Perhaps he steered in the directions she wanted to go.Medieval England is barbarous, in many ways. The descriptions of the hangings anesthetize the reader to the ultimate burial of Isabella.There are incisive descriptions of the relationships with Scotland, France and other continental courts, and the church. These narratives contribute to making the book more than just a good read for the lay reader.
—Louise
Alison Weir really does this well. If you are not familiar with her work, she is a historian whose specialty is Tutor England, though her one offs and historical fiction from the centuries just prior are amazing. This book is non-fiction though as always, it reads like fiction. Once again, Weirs ability to incorporate quotes from documents, the work of other scholars and publications, makes the dialog flow in a natural easy to follow manner. It occurred to me reading Queen Isabella, that by focusing on a female in this period, the powerful men of the age become characters observed through the lens of the female lead. Thus a sense of personality develops in all the characters from journals, letters and diaries which are far more personal than if the sources were all the business oriented and official communication and record of the world of the men of that period. I'm not sure I'm on to anything overly profound, but something clearly makes Weir's writing stand out.Isabella is a French princess who marries the Edward II of England. The marriage is political, though they have several children. Edward is simply a bad ruler. He is also a bad husband, preferring male lovers. Isabella lives a life of intrigue and adventure which includes returning to her father and brother, both kings of France, raising armies, leading invasion and toppling a regime. I won't give away Weir's conclusions nor will I spoil the book, but Queen Isabella has a few surprises for readers familiar with other accounts. Well documented, well written and fascinating. I highly recommend.
—Ray Campbell
When it comes to my historical education, I’m finding myself drawn again and again to Alison Weir, who has a real talent for making lives led long ago pulse with real vitality. In this outing she sets out to not only tell us about the life and times of Isabella, one of our most notorious queens, but to rehabilitate her image. She’s not entirely successful – while she succeeds in imparting a lot of information on this deeply interesting woman, I didn’t feel that the rehabilitation part went so well. Long thought of as one of history’s femmes fatale thanks to overthrowing her husband, King Edward II, and making her lover unofficial ruler of England, Weir seeks to paint Isabella as a woman trapped by circumstance and a victim to her times, whereas I saw her as an enormous hypocrite with an insatiable lust for wealth and power, whose tyranny and corruption equalled (if not dwarfed) her husband’s. Whether or not she was involved in Edward’s death (Weir thinks not – and in fact also points to evidence that Ed wasn’t murdered at all but fled abroad and was later even possibly reunited with Edward III) didn’t affect my opinion anywhere near as much as her blatant grabbing of lands, wealth and titles for herself and Roger Mortimer (disinheriting people wherever needed) and I also felt that Weir was actually guilty of double standards; the very offences that Edward is guilty of – excessive lavishing of wealth, power and titles to his favourites and turning a blind eye to their crimes (which were indeed many) – and for which he is condemned within the book are the very same crimes that Isabella is guilty of, only in the latter case Weir shifts the blame from Isabella to Mortimer. In my book, if Ed was responsible for the excesses of his favourites and deserved deposition for it, so did Isabella. In fact, I feel that by shifting the responsibility from her to Mortimer, she’s actually being robbed of her agency. Whilst I am well aware that women in the 14th century were the property of men, I find it hard to believe that a woman who managed to overthrow the reign of her husband was entirely at the mercy of and a victim to the whims her lover, when he only wielded the power that he did through her. The fact that she didn’t even attempt to curb his behaviour and continued to lavish more wealth and power upon him – even joining him in bullying her son, the young King Edward III, into compliance with his wishes – shows me that she wasn’t a helpless victim but a partner-in-crime. None of this makes Isabella any less interesting in my eyes, in fact it makes her more so, and I’d rather have seen Weir revel in her bad behaviour than try to whitewash it.Contrary to what seem to have been Weir’s intentions, I also felt incredibly sorry for Edward II. It’s believed his relationships with his favourites, Piers Gaveston and Hugh Le Despenser, were homosexual in nature (many of the chroniclers of the time made allusions to this, and generally whipped themselves into such a froth that I can only believe that, like modern homophobes, they secretly got off on imagining in great detail the ‘wicked and forbidden sex’ that they thought Ed was having). If this was indeed the case, it must have been unimaginably awful for him to live in a society where homosexuality was viewed as such a vile sin that its practitioners faced a brutal death, complete with their genitals being cut off (while they were still alive) and thrown to the dogs (as was the case with Le Despenser). If anything, the only thing that I feel Ed was guilty of here was appalling taste in men (he seemed to have a thing for bad boys. But then, who doesn’t?)With regard to everything else, once again I was struck by how our country has always been prey to the whims of the ruling class, who have always been an insanely greedy, duplicitous, ruthless and vicious shower of shits loyal only to their own wallets and ambition. I doubt this will change over the next 1000 years, either.So, in conclusion, whilst I enjoyed this book enormously (anything that can teach me so much in such a short space of time has to be applauded), I felt that it failed in its stated aim, hence the 3 stars.**Also posted at Randomly Reading and Ranting**
—Lisa
