Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II Read Online Free Page B

Berkeley but to other castles in the kingdom before being transferred to Berkeley. The phrase ‘Finally, they sent him to the castle at Berkeley’ proves this. This would certainly have provoked the interest of Edward III and enhanced the value of the letter: very few people knew about Edward II’s peregrinations before his final incarceration at Berkeley. At the least, Fieschi had listened to someone closely involved in Edward II’s downfall and imprisonment.
    Later the attendant who guarded him, after a time, said to your father: ‘Sire, Lord Thomas de Gornay and Lord Simon d’Esberfoit [Beresford] knights have come to kill you.
    Again, this is an accurate reflection of what happened. Simon de Beresford had been Mortimer’s lieutenant and was hanged at Tyburn in 1330 as his accomplice ‘in many crimes’. Thomas Gurney was held directly responsible for the murder of Edward II, which explains his flight from England in 1330 and Edward III’s later pursuit of him through Europe. At the same time, however, this section sits uncomfortably. Both Beresford and Gurney were dead and unable to corroborate or deny Fieschi’s story. The statement also makes no reference to the other man specifically accused of Edward II’s murder, William Ockle. Moreover, this anonymous attendant is highlysuspect. Undoubtedly Edward II had people who guarded him, but Fieschi specifically names ‘an attendant’ as if he was the only one, more of a servant than a gaoler.
    Furthermore, Mortimer, ‘with his tribe of wild Welshmen’, would hardly have entrusted the custody of his enemy to one attendant. How did the attendant know that Simon de Beresford and Thomas Gurney were going to kill the King? Mortimer and Isabella didn’t advertise whom they had chosen for this horrific and grisly task. Moreover, there is no evidence that Beresford was involved in the actual murder. True, he may have been with Mortimer at Abergavenny. Beresford was regarded as the accomplice of Mortimer ‘in all his crimes’, but the Parliament of 1330 did not name him as a regicide and Lord Berkeley never mentions Beresford as being directly associated with Edward II’s murder.
    ‘. . . If it pleases you then I shall give you my clothes then you may escape more easily.’
    This assertion is highly questionable. Berkeley was a formidable fortress and Edward II would have been closely confined. It would have needed more than a change of clothes to effect an escape. If Swynbroke’s assertion is correct, Edward was stripped of all royal attire and, as a prisoner, would have hardly worn distinctive dress. Fieschi’s statement also implies that, by mere chance, Edward’s attendant had the same strong and striking physique as his royal prisoner. In this matter, Fieschi’s tale borders on the incredible.
    Then, dressed in these clothes, he came out of prisonby night and managed to reach the last door without opposition because he was not recognized. He found the porter sleeping and straight away killed him. Once he had taken the keys of the door, he opened it and left together with the man who had guarded him.
    Fieschi depicts a lack of security at Berkeley difficult to accept. According to the Italian priest, Edward changed his clothes, managed to get out of his prison, walked along corridors, across baileys in the dead of night and reached some postern gate in the castle. He then killed the porter, opened the door and escaped. No other guards were on duty either around the prison itself or in the castle grounds and so Edward II escaped ‘because he was not recognized’. The castle in fact would have been swarming with Mortimer’s henchmen. Gates would have been guarded, all entrances heavily defended. What’s more, such an escape would need careful planning. Berkeley was surrounded by a moat. If anyone left by a postern gate they would have to swim this and then thread their way through treacherous marshy grounds. Once they were clear of the castle they would