4 ms·

You can read about the Despensers here: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser_War https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser_War > In February 1321 Mortimer,

You can read about the Despensers here: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser_War https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser_War > In February 1321 Mortimer, Hereford and Lancaster agreed on an attack on the Despenser lands in Wales.[3] Edward responded in March by mobilising his forces in Wales, demonstrating that he intended to make any attack on the Despensers an attack on the crown, and therefore treasonable.[3] The king travelled to Gloucester and called upon the Marcher Lords to join him there; Mortimer and Hereford declined.[3] Mobilising more forces, Edward marched on to Bristol, and repeated his call for the Marcher Lords to convene with him there in May.[4] They again declined.[4] > Edward had returned to London, where he held his own parliament to discuss courses of action.[5] Mortimer led his army east towards London as well, reaching St Albans in late July.[5] The city of London refused to let Mortimer's forces in, and his forces placed the capital under effective siege.[5] Lancaster arrived in August to support him and a tense stand-off ensued, with the younger Despenser threatening the rebels from a ship on the River Thames, and the barons threatening to begin to destroy royal properties and lands outside London unless he desisted.[5] > The Earl of Pembroke, a moderate baron with strong French links, intervened in an attempt to defuse the crisis.[6] Edward continued to refuse to negotiate or exile the Despensers, so Pembroke arranged for Queen Isabella to publicly go down on her knees to appeal to Edward to exile the Despensers.[6] This provided him with a face-saving excuse to exile the Despensers and defuse the crisis, but it was clear Edward intended to arrange their return at the first opportunity.[7] This relates to the time period in question. So the Despensers and the king were on the same side. Lots of confusing info... But, this story is nothing about right, just power. How can the BBC say the abbot is the gangster in this scenario? The reason is that their job is to accommodate themselves and their audience to power. It's nothing to do with right or wrong. Even historical power from 700 years so cannot be questioned - one cannot start to unravel even that ancient ball of string.

defrost 3y ago
> How can the BBC say the abbot is the gangster in this scenario? Perhaps it was the other stuff also listed, the arsons, the assaults, the murder for hire, the kidnapping, etc.
- verisimi 3y ago
  But again, this is a choice about how to characterise the people in this narrative. Certainly the king would be assaulting, killing, imprisoning/kidnapping too. He would be doing it more. But he would not be characterised as a gangster.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Wouldn't he? That seems odd given history frequently characterises various monarchs as more or less thuglife than others. Who was that villian in the tales of Robin Hood? Richard Lackland!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England Contemporary chroniclers were mostly critical of John's performance as king, and his reign has since been the subject of significant debate and periodic revision by historians from the 16th century onwards. Historian Jim Bradbury has summarised the current historical opinion of John's positive qualities, observing that John is today usually considered a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general". Nonetheless, modern historians agree that he also had many faults as king, including what historian Ralph Turner describes as "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits", such as pettiness, spitefulness, and cruelty. These negative qualities provided extensive material for fiction writers in the Victorian era, and John remains a recurring character within Western popular culture, primarily as a villain in Robin Hood folklore. It's not the case that royalty is always viewed in a favourable light, history has many opinions and the balance of consensus swings from monarch to monarch wrt them being mostly harmless or not.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    American here but I agree with the healthy skepticism. Standards for warlords (Kings and Princes in other words) were quite different 800 years ago in that part of the world. It appears there is some balance in writing between historical accuracy, appeasing the attitudes prevalent today, and simply exaggerating in a colorful way to attract superficial readers. The heavy-handedness of the framing suggest the latter two have won here.

defrost 3y ago

> How can the BBC say the abbot is the gangster in this scenario? Perhaps it was the other stuff also listed, the arsons, the assaults, the murder for hire, the kidnapping, etc.

verisimi 3y ago
But again, this is a choice about how to characterise the people in this narrative. Certainly the king would be assaulting, killing, imprisoning/kidnapping too. He would be doing it more. But he would not be characterised as a gangster.
- defrost 3y ago
  Wouldn't he? That seems odd given history frequently characterises various monarchs as more or less thuglife than others. Who was that villian in the tales of Robin Hood? Richard Lackland!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England Contemporary chroniclers were mostly critical of John's performance as king, and his reign has since been the subject of significant debate and periodic revision by historians from the 16th century onwards. Historian Jim Bradbury has summarised the current historical opinion of John's positive qualities, observing that John is today usually considered a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general". Nonetheless, modern historians agree that he also had many faults as king, including what historian Ralph Turner describes as "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits", such as pettiness, spitefulness, and cruelty. These negative qualities provided extensive material for fiction writers in the Victorian era, and John remains a recurring character within Western popular culture, primarily as a villain in Robin Hood folklore. It's not the case that royalty is always viewed in a favourable light, history has many opinions and the balance of consensus swings from monarch to monarch wrt them being mostly harmless or not.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  American here but I agree with the healthy skepticism. Standards for warlords (Kings and Princes in other words) were quite different 800 years ago in that part of the world. It appears there is some balance in writing between historical accuracy, appeasing the attitudes prevalent today, and simply exaggerating in a colorful way to attract superficial readers. The heavy-handedness of the framing suggest the latter two have won here.