Edward II (* 25 April 1284; † 21 September 1327) was the fourth and only surviving son of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. Henry II’s greatest shortcoming was his inability to produce sons who could do him justice. A hundred years later, the same was to happen to his great-grandson. Edward I was one of the most important rulers from the House of Anjou-Plantagenet. He strengthened kingship against the high nobility, whom he was able to inflict a significant defeat on at Eversham in 1265, took part in the 7th Crusade, pushed back the influence of the Church, built up a functioning administration, reformed the laws, incorporated Wales into his realm and became Lord of Scots. In 1295 he convened a parliament in which the commons were also represented. In doing so, he not only pushed back feudalism, but also became the father of English parliamentarism. In between, he found time to marry twice and father no fewer than nineteen children.
Measured against such a father, his successor could only go down in history as a weakling. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that Edward I burdened his son with a heavy legacy: Domestically, the English aristocracy left no stone unturned to regain more independence, in terms of foreign policy the struggle with Scotland continued, the peace with France was fragile at best and economically the country was not in good shape. Although Edward I and his wife had a happy marriage, they did not have a close bond with any of their children. Edward rarely got to see his parents. From 1297, the crown prince was prepared for his future role as king. During his father’s lifetime, there was nothing to suggest that he was unsuited for it. He attended council meetings, was a good fighter and fulfilled all representational duties. In 1301, Edward I appointed him Prince of Wales. Edward was the first heir to the English throne to receive this title.
As he had no brothers, Edward I assembled a staff of noblemen of about the same age for his son. One of them was Piers Gaveston, who quickly established a close relationship with the heir to the throne. How close it actually was is the subject of debate. Male friendships, which today would be considered above-average in cordiality, were commonplace in the Middle Ages, but even contemporaries at the time considered this connection too immoderate. Whether it was actually a homosexual relationship in today’s sense, although possible, is still not proven. At the beginning of 1307, Edward I sent Gaveston temporarily into exile. Edward II revoked this as one of his first royal acts and made him Earl of Cornwall. He showered his favourite with favours. This did not change after Edward II complied with an agreement with France and married Isabella, the daughter of Philippe IV of France, on 25 January 1308. Nevertheless, there was never any conflict between the Queen and Gaveston. He was not interested in her at all and she was clever enough not to come between him and the king. The situation was different with the English high aristocracy. Their resistance had already stirred towards the end of Edward I’s reign. His son must have given them the impression of a very weak ruler right from the start. In fact, Edward II did not conform to the ideas of a medieval monarch. He was a tall, handsome man who knew how to fight, but did so reluctantly. Despite his riding skills, he was not interested in hunting or falconry. Instead, he cultivated hobbies that were very unroyal for his time, such as music, rowing and swimming. He was so sociable that he even socialised with his subordinates, which also caused consternation among the nobility. On the other hand, his vindictiveness did not even spare family members.
Gaveston basked in the king’s favour and continually snubbed England’s leading nobles. The rejection of Gaveston and the presumed weakness of the sovereign led the nobility to demand not only the banishment of his favourite, but also reforms that would strengthen their autonomy and parliament against the crown. Edward II had to agree to these so-called Ordinances in 1311. The next eleven years were marked by sometimes violent confrontations over the repeal or enforcement of these ordinances between the king on the one hand and the English high aristocracy on the other. They reached their first climax in 1312, when some lords had Gaveston executed under far from honourable circumstances. Several nobles then supported Edward II. In the end, a compromise was reached, but the actual conflict remained. Sometimes one side retained the upper hand, sometimes the other. Edward II suffered a major setback in June 1314, when he was crushed by the Scots at the Battle of Bannockburn. Although there were other favourites at this time, such as Roger d’Amory, Hugh Audley or William Montacute, they all fell far short of the importance that Gaveston had had. This changed with the appearance of Hugh Despenser Jr. In 1318 he became Lord Chamberlain of the royal household and in a very short time the king’s closest confidant. Unlike Gaveston, Despenser was a real danger. He was greedy for land and loved to grab that of the Marcher Lords in Wales. In August 1321, the leading nobles managed to send Despenser into exile with his father. They returned as early as December, as fighting had meanwhile broken out between the Lords and Edward II. During the so-called "Despenser War", after defeating the Marcher Lords, the king also triumphed over the noble opposition led by the Earl of Lancaster in the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322. Edward II had the leading lords executed or imprisoned. He revoked the Ordinances of 1311 and, with the help of the Despensers, established a tyranny over the next few years that satisfied the royal desire for revenge as well as shameless enrichment. While the Despensers focused their attention on lands, Edward II was more interested in money. Since 1311, England had been plagued by economic crises. 12 years later, the state budget was reorganised for the first time, which is why it was even possible to build up reserves, but the population did not notice anything about it.
Gaveston had ignored Isabella. Despenser, on the other hand, did everything in his power to discredit her, with the aim of bringing about a divorce. Isabella’s brother Louis X had died suddenly in 1316, which meant the beginning of some turbulence in the French succession. In 1322, her younger brother Charles IV received the crown and demanded the oath of fealty for the French territories from the English king. A further escalation of the conflict was averted when Isabella and the English heir to the throne, Edward, travelled to France so that the prince could take the oath instead of his father. What neither Edward II nor Despenser had reckoned with was that Isabella refused to return to England with her son. Thanks to the support of her family and several English nobles who had fled from the Despensers, she organised a force that landed in England on 24 September 1326. As Edward II enjoyed little support at home, his only option was to flee. He was captured and taken to Kenilworth Castle via Monmouth Castle. There was no legal way to depose the king, as this could only be done by parliament, but a parliament could only be called by the king, which of course Edward II did not do. It nevertheless met in January 1327, declared the king deposed for proven incompetence and proclaimed his son as successor. After initial refusal, Edward II abdicated the throne on 20 January 1327. Edward II was so unpopular that no one complained about the unlawful procedure. Nevertheless, he still had supporters, for there were several attempts to free him. These undertakings are as mysterious as the actual demise of the former monarch. On 3 April he was transferred from Kenilworth to Berkeley, where Thomas Berkeley and his brother-in-law John Maltravers were in charge of him.
However, both rarely stayed in the castle. On 21 September 1327, it was reported that the former king had succumbed to illness. However, the funeral did not take place until shortly before Christmas. Contrary to custom, Edward II was not buried in Westminster Abbey, the traditional burial place of English kings, but in what is now Gloucester Abbey. Over the years, numerous legends have grown up around the death. It was said that Edward II had been imprisoned under inhumane conditions before he was brutally murdered. When the so-called "Fieschi letter" appeared in the 19th century, the theory arose that Edward II had managed to escape, which had to be concealed by Isabella and Mortimer, which is why they only faked his burial.1
Edward II
Marlowe’s Edward II is weak, impressionable, fickle, self-centred, vindictive and oblivious to duty. He cares nothing for politics, upsets the social structure of the court for Gaveston and spurns his loving wife Isabella. As king, he insists on his sovereign rights without fulfilling the duties that go with them. His conflict with the leading nobles revolves solely around Gaveston and is already so entrenched in that an amicable solution is hardly possible.
This Edward II can’t stand being alone. He always needs a stronger character at his side. Right at the beginning he calls Gaveston to him because his father has died. Every separation from Gaveston plunges the king into an emotional crisis. With astonishing determination, he vows revenge for Gaveston’s death (11.128-142) and ends the soliloquy by naming Spencer his new favourite. No sooner has the dominant figure in the king’s life disappeared than he has to replace him with a new one. In his monophobia, Edward II will even ask his murderer not to leave him.
The Murder
How Marlowe kills his Edward II has been a source of controversy for years, both in research and among theatre people. (When the drama returned to the stage in the early 20th century, the murder was not shown at all.2) Although Lightborn initially demands a red-hot spit, a mattress and a table, it is only clear from the speech text that he gets the table. It looks as if the king is being crushed and not, as is so often rumoured, anally penetrated to death with a spit.3 In the absence of a scene direction, the possibility remains that the spit nevertheless came on stage because the actors knew what they had to do at the time.4 Although this method of death is found in Holinshed, it is not found in the majority of English historians. Ian Mortimer compared twenty-one chronicles from c. 1330 to c. 1400 with regard to the details of Edward II’s death; only five mention the red-hot metal spit..5 In the present situation, that would also have been a conceivably unfavourable method of murder. In Lightborn assured Mortimer that no one would ever know how the king died. Later, Mortimer emphasised to him again that no one should find out how Edward had been killed. He was therefore to be killed as quickly as possible and without any fuss. If a red-hot poker had been inserted into the anus, it would have taken days before Edward died in terrible pain6 and the cause of death would have been obvious to everyone. Probably the red-hot spit has less to do with English history than with Lightborn’s demonic heritage. His roots as well as his name come from the Chester Mystery Plays.7
"This earlier Lightborn, as a follower of Lucifer the angel, is sent to Hell for his 'foule pryde', and there becomes secundus Demon. In that environment his normal equipment would naturally include a sharp-pronged fork and a red-hot spit."8
Looking at the sources and the Christian tradition in which the play is set, the violent scenes can no longer be seen as psycho-sexual anomalies of the author.9
The stage-effective presentation of a sadistic perversion of the sex act by means of a red-hot spit lacks textual support. In this scene, it is not Edward the homosexual but Edward the king who is destroyed by his enemies. The humiliating circumstances under which Edward comes to death is a dismantling of the royal status, not the person. Marlowe’s unmasking of the king as a human being goes far beyond Shakespeare’s Henry V, where a monarch claims himself to be a man like any other and relativises this view in the same breath (Henry V. IV,1,115-125). Edward is not allowed to make idle speculations about his rank around the campfire. He must experience first-hand that neither rank, inheritance nor the crown protect him from betrayal, humiliation, cruelty, suffering and ultimately death. The death scene of Edward II is one of the most radical things Marlowe ever created. It is "[…] the dissolution of the sacred category of king, and the revelation that kingship is not intrinsic to the person, nor affirmed by God, but dependent on power."10 The ethical forbidding of killing an anointed king is far from being an obstacle to the realpolitik of not doing it. Whoever has the power does not have to worry about morality, religion or law. Machiavelli had already come to this conclusion and a quick look at the events of his time, had to convince Marlowe that it still held its validity. Edward’s death exposed on stage the myth of the untouchable ruler by the grace of God as ruthlessly as Mary Stuart’s death did in world history. In death, everyone is equal, no matter what status he may have had in life. Violence stops at no one, not even the most elevated. With Edward II, Marlowe shows that regicide is a murder like any other, because: "[…] il y autant de mal à tuer un savetier, qu’un roi ;".11
