GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-10 > 0875990332


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Edward II's Sexuality (Was: William 'Braveheart' Wallace)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:38:52 -1000


Pete Barrett wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 23:40:10 -0700, Sagamaster <> wrote:
>
> >Some people have been asking for sources in referance to Edward II's
> >sexual orientaion. Here is some fodder for the debate.
> >
> >In lecture, Prof. Stanley Lehmberg, Ph.D. in Medieval History, currently
> >teaching at the U of MN, said that Ed was a homosexual and that the
> >parantage of his two children by Isabella was highly doubtful.
>
> But on what grounds? Homosexuals marry and have children these days, and
there's
> no reason to think things were any different in C14. And that particularly
goes
> for the king, who would have a duty to do so. If no one at the time suggested
> that he wasn't their father (and they were in a much better position to know
> than we can be), there ought to be some pretty good evidence before it's
> suggested now, surely? All I can see is the 5 year gap between the marriage
and
> the birth.
>
> >That
> >there was no dispute at the time was due to a lack of strength by his
> >opponants at the time an a wish to avoid an drawn out civil war.
> >
> Henry IV suggested (no more than that) that Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, was
> actually the _elder_ brother of Edward I, but had been passed over because of
> his deformity, in order to bolster his own claim to the throne. This
(provably
> false) story had been put about, but if there had been serious doubt as to
the
> parentage of Edward III, wouldn't he have brought that forward instead (it
would
> have had the same effect of making him the right heir instead of Richard II
and
> the Mortimers after him)?
>
> Pete Barrett

Quite right.

It would certainly be useful if Stanley Lehmberg would share his
rationale and evidence with us.
--

D. Spencer Hines---"Volkov boyat'sya v les ne khodit'"---Russian
Proverb---[If one is afraid of wolves, one should not go into the
forest.]

This thread: