The death of Edward II and the Fieschi Letter

[William the Bastard]

After reading Ian Mortimer's excellent book on the life of Edward III a month ago, one aspect of the book has stuck in my mind as rather polemic. The majority of the work isn't particularly anything new on the topic but it is very well written and arranged. However Mortimer makes a rather large assertion, mid way through, that Edward of Carnavon wasn't assassinated at the whim of Roger Mortimer at all but was in fact helped to flee the kingdom to live the rest of his life as a hermit monk.

The evidence to corroborate his claims is what is known as the Fieschi Letter, written by Manuele Fieschi to Edward III explaining his father's goings on. As far as why Edward II would keep a low profile I can understand as he was never as popular as his son and so returning to England would complicate things a little but that doesn't mean it happened so.

Personally I am still unsure what to make of it. I had never heard of this version before and wondered whether anyone else has and what they make of it.

[Odovacar]

I am far from being knowledgable about Edward II...I have read one article written by Mortimer about the king's continued life theory, but how exactly tries he to prove that?
I mean, okay we have this letter but now much else. I think he has another arguments, but overall still not convincing enough.

[King Edward III]

Ah yes, I've read that book a while ago. An excellent book indeed.

Can't say I know or have studied the details of his death but I'm inclined to agree with Mortimer given the account he makes of Edwards erratic movements and his eventual meeting with the old Edward in Germany was it? Then again I can't really see why the papacy would keep this covered up for him, the popes in his lifetime were all French or French aligned as I remember.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Well, some favor the Fieschi theory, most don't.
If it is true, there were many reasons for Edward III to keep it secret, i.e. securing his throne. There are some strange nuances, like all the favors that he bestowed upon Fieschi. Plus, some aspects of Edward of Caernarvon's attempt to escape, could've been known only by the participant.
Yet, we have way more evidence that he indeed died (presumably murdered - on this a little later).

Plus, no matter how bad a king Edward II was, he was a good and loving father to his children. We can see that from their correspondence. And Edward III (Prince Edward at the time) was clearly in pain while taking side of his mother. There are several reasons to his actions, the main ones would be Hugh le Despenser The Younger's usurpation of power (it was said that Edward had no desire to govern) and hummiliation of his dear mother (they remained very close until her death). But he loved his father too.

On the matter of Caernarvon's death, we can claim that the "hot iron" theory is nothing more than a falsification, for the first time it appears in the 1340's (if I'm not mistaken in Brute). If he was murdered, he most probably was smothered with a pillow. There's is no record of any noise or screams coming form the tower where he was held. And it's hard to imagine that Edward, in his forties and one of the strongest men in England, wouldn't put up the fight. Plus, the murderers acted on Mortimer's behalf only. Isabella even sent people to quietly investigate the matters of Edward's death (without knowledge of Mortimer, of course).

But there's another theory:
Edward died of depression and self-starvation. One of the reasons to think so is that his lyrics written at Kennilworth castle (he was imprisoned there at the beginning) are very depressive and some even suggest, between the lines, with no willingness to live.

If I'm not mistaken, Pope John (on Edward's personal and discreet request) even sent an agent to check out the claim. But after several months, he dismissed the idea of it in his letter.

There's more to back the claim that Edward died or escaped, but wasn't murdered.
First, two people that were "responsible" for his murder were acquitted (even though Maltravers had to spend some years in exile).
Thomas de Berkeley was able to prove his innocence in court.
Maltravers was to be Edward III's most trusted agent in Flanders for years and even took a seat in Parliament. Which would be strange if Edward believed in his father's murder, and especially given the fact that Maltravers was very close to Mortimer before.
William Ogle was also pardonned
Only one of Caernarvon's goalers, Thomas Gourney, fled England and Edward even sent bounty hunters to catch him. But this might be beause of his ill treatment of an ex-monarch.

The regicide was the main accusation in Mortimer's trial and no matter what happened at Berkely, the young king had to go with the "murdered Edward II" idea.

P.S. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe in smothering or self-starvation than escape. But by no means I dismiss the theory completely.

[William the Bastard]

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe in smothering or self-starvation than escape. But by no means I dismiss the theory completely.

I have the same attitude to it too. I wouldn't be surprised if Ian Mortimer himself believes this yet his polemic attitude is simply a facade as to create a dialogue on the issue, as opposed to simply putting it to bed.

Cheers for the posts guys. Glad to see other people have considered this issue also.