History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedReclaiming the Edwards?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2009 at 19:16
Remarkable? I suppose one might look at it that way if one remarked on the slaughter at Berwick-on-Tweed done at Edward Longshank's order or others of his acts of barbarism.

I believe what Chookie was saying was that Edward Longshanks was the first EDWARD of the Plantagenet line.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Originally posted by Chookie Chookie wrote:

The numbering from Longshanks is because he considered himself to first of the Plantagenet dynasty (which he was), not because of any Norman influence. He was after all fighting to "regain" his French territories.

As to the tapestry "in England where there is a very good chance it was made" to me, this quotation says there's a very slight possibility it might be English (so hand it over.........)
 
I suppose by "Longshanks" you mean that famous and remarkable English king Edward I. If so, Chookie, he was not the first of the Plantagenet kings. That would be, in fact, Henry II. 


Edited by JRScotia - 18-May-2009 at 19:17
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2009 at 20:10
Concerning atrocities. The first acts of barbarism were actually commited by the Scots at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon war of 1296. The Scots invaded England, commiting atrocities such as infanticide, mutilation of women, and the burning alive of 200 schoolchidren at Corbridge. Furthermore, at Easter of that year a large Scottish force attempted to storm Carlisle, failed but then ravaged the surrounding countryside.
 
All of this happened before Edward I was anywhere near Berwick.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2009 at 20:47
Anglo-Saxon war? The correct term is the Scottish War of Independence after your so admired Edward broke his vow of not interfering in Scottish affairs and decided to remove and imprison the Scottish king and conquer the country.

And it would be interesting to know how Edward Longshanks was "nowhere near Berwick" since in MARCH of 1296 he put that city to the sword murdering at about the LOWEST estimates 16,000 men, women AND children. Maybe he moved his army there that fast by magic? He wasn't picky enough to make it only "schoolchildren." ANY child would do for his butchery. After April 27 of 1296 after the Scottish defeat at Dunbar, there WAS no organized resistance remaining in Scotland which would make attacking Carlisle quite a trick. In fact, they were much too busy trying to defend themselves from a large invading army to even CONSIDER invading England.

Yes, let's talk atrocities.

Edit: There is a fascinating contemporary description of Edward Longshanks (written by an Englishman mind you) in the Song of Lewes (ed. & tr. by C. A. Kingsford, MA, St. John's College Oxford):

He is valiant as a lion, quick to attack the strongest and fearing the onslaught of none. But if a lion in pride and fierceness, he is a panther in fierceness and inconsistency, changing his word and promise, cloaking himself by pleasant speech. When he is cornered he promises whatever you wish but as soon as he has escaped he forgets his promise. The treachery or falsehood by which he is advanced he calls prudence and the path by which he attains his ends, however crooked, he calls straight, and whatever he likes he says is lawful.

When the Scots asked Edward Longshanks to mediate in their disputed succession--at which time the Scots and English were at peace and had been for some years, he swore he would never interfere in Scottish affairs. Afterwards, within weeks, he broke his word and drove the country to war. In that war, his acts can only be described as monstrous.

Whatever good can be said about the man, that is the truth.


Edited by JRScotia - 19-May-2009 at 21:13
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2009 at 21:13
The Scots actually invaded England at Easter of that year when Edward I was at Newcastle. He did not begin military activity until after Easter. And the atrocities committed by the Scots actually happened.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2009 at 21:18
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The Scots actually invaded England at Easter of that year when Edward I was at Newcastle. He did not begin military activity until after Easter. And the atrocities committed by the Scots actually happened.


Wulfstan, Easter does not fall before March. (I never checked when it fell that year but the liturgical calendar prevents it falling before March) There were plenty of times when the Scots invaded (or raided) England. But if you're going to look to a Scot for an apology, think again. Edward Longshanks STARTED that war. Pure and simple.

Actually there was a raid of England about that time--nothing LIKE an invasion. There was some hope that by raiding England (there was never any thought of taking Carlisle which would have taken a major seige) that Edward might be drawn away from Berwick. The ploy didn't work.


Edited by JRScotia - 19-May-2009 at 22:15
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 05:11
The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland. When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit. The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.
 
The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.
 
Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.
 
Back to Top
Chookie View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Apr-2008
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chookie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 21:34
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland.

Balliol had been imposed on Scotland by Longshanks, of course he was expected to do what his paymaster said...

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit.

What Longshanks thought was immaterial, as is what he did. The realm of Scotland belonged to the people of Scotland not some bloody tourist.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.

Don't you mean as any medieval English king? Remember, some kings were elected.
 
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.

Evidence please. Especially on the raid which didn't work - don't forget raids / incursions or whatever you want call them are designed to cause loss of life and damage to property.
 
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.

The numbers don't actually matter, had he done that in the 1940s he would have been in the same dock as Goering and Geobbels. On your point about a "rebellious town", Longshanks was not the overlord of Berwick, no matter what he thought. Berwick and Scotland were not his to muck about with.
They make a desert and they call it peace
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 02:05
Let me say this. The English had NO claim to Scotland no matter what Edward Longshanks or any other Englishman thought. None. Absolutely none. Being an overlord didn't give one unlimited rights. How many times had the English fought their own king's French overlords? Hmmmm?

This oh so honorable English king also made a Solemn Oath not to  interfere in the traditional workings of Scotland when he agreed to mediate the dispute between Comyn and Bruce over the crown of Scotland. He had already secretly revealed to certain barons that he intended to conquer Scotland AND summoned his army to the border so that with an army sitting over the border they had no choice but to accept his demands even though they knew he couldn't be trusted. (And they certainly didn't consider their oaths binding given, as they were, under duress.)

The treachery or falsehood by which he is advanced he calls prudence and the path by which he attains his ends, however crooked, he calls straight, and whatever he likes he says is lawful.

As for the raid into England, of course it caused damage and loss of life. What do you think? You think the English invasion wasn't causing MORE damage and loss of life--but Scots were suppose to sit there and just let themselves be conquered? I think not! Want to know how many Scots the English killed and how much they destroyed over the next twenty years of warfare as they tried to conquer a FOREIGN COUNTRY?

The demands he made of Baliol within weeks were ones that he mad made SOLEMN VOWS that he would not make ever. He broke every oath he had made. Baliol (weakling though he was) had no choice except to fight.

Being overlord, which the French kings were to the English kings by the way, gave him no right to depose Baliol who he had chosen against the best interests of Scotland knowing that Bruce the Competitor would have gone to war rather than submit.

And most scholars believe Wynton's numbers are too low, nor was putting a civilian population to the sword typical medieval behavior in spite of your claim that it was.

His barbarity was remarkable in an age known for barbarity. Find another king who had a woman (Mary Bruce) hung in a cage exposed to abuse and the elements winter and summer outside a castle. (She should have chosen anther brother) Oh, yes he prepared a similar cage to hang an eleven year old girl, Marjorie Bruce.  At the urgings of others he rescinded that to solitary confinement!

Explain that--A child whose only crime was having a father.

Oh, yes, he was a REMARKABLE king. He was indeed.

As for who had the right to Scotland it was the Community of the Realm of Scotland and no one could give that away. From the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath referring to King Robert Bruce:

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland. When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit. The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.
 
The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.
 
Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.
 


Edited by JRScotia - 21-May-2009 at 06:44
Saor Alba
Back to Top
bod View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Apr-2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 11:50
Your not a fan of Edward I then?ShockedSmile
Back to Top
Huscarl View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Huscarl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 13:46
I started out asking about the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, Anjouvin and Plantagenet king's names, now we've descended into the usual bitter and futile bickering about Scotland and England...Ermm

All nobles from those eras were not particularly 100% pleasant, no matter whom you scrutinise.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:31
You could put it that way.  Tongue

Actually, he had his good side. He only fathered a few bastards and was considered unusually chaste and a good ruler in his own country. The English, you must recall, referred to him as "the lawgiver". It was his assumption that he had the right to conquer everyone else--a failing the Norman-French were much given to as far as I can tell--that tends to annoy. But did someone expect to bring up his name and think people wouldn't mention that the man is referred to as "The Hammer of the Scots"? Come on, let's get realistic here.

Were all nobles evil? No, I don't think so, but they didn't live by 21st century standards and it's a mistake to try to judge them by those. In fact, many of those nobles were loved by their own people, as was Edward.

However, even by 14th Century standards some of Edward's acts were considered shocking. Comments to the contrary, putting cities to the sword, including foreign merchants, was not common nor was it customary to cage female prisoners as though they were an exhibit in a zoo. And while one cannot blame him (in my opinion--you'll find this questioned) for inventing the punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering, he was the one who turned it into a common punishment.

Did I mention, I don't like him? Wink

Edit: Although I think it was the subject of whether the English have a claim on the Bayeux Tapestry that  turned the thing into an argument. I must admit I don't much care how the English kings are numbered.

Originally posted by bod bod wrote:

Your not a fan of Edward I then?ShockedSmile


Edited by JRScotia - 21-May-2009 at 15:46
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 19:41
JRScotia:
 
Contrary to what you suggested, Edward I fathered no bastards, nor did he assume he had a right to conquer all others. And I would consider as shocking the action of that Scottish hero Wallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.
Back to Top
Eigon View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 07-Feb-2009
Location: Hay on Wye
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 22:20

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 
Back to the numbering issue - probably best to leave it as it is, with the Anglo-Saxon rulers clearly differentiated from the Normans.
Back to Top
Chookie View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Apr-2008
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chookie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 22:40
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JWallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.

He did this personally? There is neither doubt nor reason for doubt about the flaying of de Cressingham, there were, however reasons for the treatment meted out to his body.

de Cressingham was even more hated in Scotland than Longshanks, but he was not loved in England either. This is an extract from the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough:-

"The Scots stripped him of his skin and divided it amongst themselves in small parts, not indeed for relics but for insults, for he was a handsome and exceedingly fat man and they called him not the King's treasurer but the King's 'Treacherer' and this was truer than they believed. For he led many astray that day, but he too, who was smooth and slippery, exalted with pride and given over to avarice, was himself led astray."

Longshanks was even by 14th century standards, a vicious man.


Edited by Chookie - 21-May-2009 at 23:38
They make a desert and they call it peace
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 23:29
While Wallace was alive when Edward Longshanks had HIM hanged, drawn and quartered--his penis and testicles cut off, his belly cut open and his intestines pulled out while he still lived. Someone who had never sworn him fealty and was in no way a traitor by the way. 

What was done to Cressingham was not done "by Wallace" and is hardly as shocking as hanging, drawing and quartering at least dozens of men, caging people for years at a time or ravaging Berwick just to start the list.

By the way, if you do some research you will find that it was widely believed that Sir John Botetourt was in fact Edward's bastard. While it can't be proven, there is little other reason to see why he was so highly favored by that king and contemporaries apparently thought that was the case. It's frankly not a large issue. He was certainly reputed to have had affairs before his marriage which would have been about when Botetourt was born. One bastard hardly changed his reputation for general chasteness which doesn't make up for his other vicious attributes.

As for my accusation that he thought he had the right to conquer "everyone" his forays in conquest in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Gascony, etc. make that not an altogether unreasonable statement although I will give you that I was using a touch of hyperbole.

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

JRScotia:
 
Contrary to what you suggested, Edward I fathered no bastards, nor did he assume he had a right to conquer all others. And I would consider as shocking the action of that Scottish hero Wallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.


Edited by JRScotia - 22-May-2009 at 04:33
Saor Alba
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 23:39
You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon Eigon wrote:

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 
Back to the numbering issue - probably best to leave it as it is, with the Anglo-Saxon rulers clearly differentiated from the Normans.
Saor Alba
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 23:44
I can't see any real reason for renumbering.


Edited by JRScotia - 21-May-2009 at 23:48
Saor Alba
Back to Top
bod View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Apr-2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 09:58
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon Eigon wrote:

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 



It was fortunate for Scotland that Edward I spent all his money subjugating Wales before he turned his attention to Scotland. I wonder what would have happened if he had attempted to conquer  Scotland before Wales? Britain could have become a very different place. 

I do belive that what he did to Welsh culture was a tragedy.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 16:48
Spent all his money? Not that any Scot ever noticed. You might want to re-read Scottish history on that. The campaign in Wales unfortunately did not reduce his coffers. If any campaigns helped the Scots, it was his campaigns in France. That said, I agree about Wales. What was done can only be classed as a tragedy of huge proportions--the near destruction of a nation and its culture.

And I still think the English should return what they took. It will be interesting to see what happens the day the English show up in Edinburgh and say they want the Stone of Destiny back for an English coronation. Personally, I get less excited about that since I have serious doubts that it IS the Stone of Destiny. But since the English think it is, I say don't let them have it.
 

Originally posted by bod bod wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon Eigon wrote:

It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating!

He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.
 



It was fortunate for Scotland that Edward I spent all his money subjugating Wales before he turned his attention to Scotland. I wonder what would have happened if he had attempted to conquer  Scotland before Wales? Britain could have become a very different place. 

I do belive that what he did to Welsh culture was a tragedy.


Edited by JRScotia - 22-May-2009 at 16:51
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 19:29
JRScotia`s suggestion that Edward sired a bastard called John Botetourt is based solely on his name being written over an erasure in a genealogical table in a Hailes Abbey chronicle. It seems to be an error by a scribe. There is nothing in John Botetourt`s subsequent career to suggest that he was Edward`s illegitimate son. Indeed there is nothing in Edward`s character to suggest infidelity. He was, after all, deeply devoted to his queen, Eleanor. 
 
Bod enquires why Edward didn`t attempt to conquer Scotland before Wales. It wasn`t a case of conquering anywhere. Edward regarded his military activity in both countries as the punishment of recalcitrant vassals who had revolted against their liege lord.
From Woden sprang all our royal kin.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.059 seconds.