Edward Ii - To What Extent Is Edward Responsible For His Own

2072 Words5 Pages

‘Edward II plantagenet King of England,
Whose incompetence and distaste for government finally led to
His deposition and murder.’

The Elizabethan drama, Christopher Marlowe’s, Edward the Second is, according to Aristotle’s definition of the word, a tragedy. That is to say it concerns the fall of a great man because of a mistake he has made or a flaw in his character. During this essay I will demonstrate how this definition of tragedy applies to Edward II.

Edward II was king of England, and reigned from 1307 to 1327, as a prince he had developed a close, possibly homosexual, relationship with a base commoner of very low social standing named Piers de Gaveston. The young prince’s father Edward I, also known as Edward the Longshanks due to the length of his legs, disapproved of the developing relationship and had Gaveston banished from the kingdom. Partly due to this and also due to differences in personality between the two men, the relationship between father and son was relatively hostile. The young prince had little respect for his father or his father’s wishes, illustrated by his act of immediately repealing of Gaveston’s banishment upon his father’s death,

‘My father is deceased; come, Gaveston,
And share the kingdom with thy dearest friend.’

His father spent his life expanding and defending his young son’s future kingdom and in trying to educate his son in the art of war. The young prince however was totally uninterested in the art of war or in expanding or defending his kingdom, as is proved by the comments made to him when he is king,

‘Look for rebellion, look to be deposed:
Thy garrisons are beaten out of France,
And, lame and poor, lie groaning at the gates;
The wild O’Neill with swarms of Irish kerns,
Live uncontrolled within the English pale;
Unto the walls of York the Scots made road
And un-resisted, drave away rich spoils.’
‘The haughty Dane commands the narrow seas,
While in the harbour thy ride thy ships un-rigged.’

Edward completely neglects his duty as a king to look after the country before himself. There are many examples of this throughout the play and I will illustrate a few of them as I go through.

His only real interests being in the arts such as the theatre, music and other frivolity. In fact it could be said that because of this interest in the arts, he did not learn how to defend himself physically or polit...

... middle of paper ...

...describe.’

Mortimer’s relationship with Edward was always one of hostility from very early on in the play and at first this was understandable, with Edward’s insult of giving the broad seal to gather throughout the realm for his father’s ransom when it was in Edwards wars his father was captured. Made even more insulting by the fact the king was giving the money to Gaveston for no good reason. I think it can be seen that the only problem in any of Edward’s relationships is his favourites. In the case of the barons the favourite was Gaveston and in the case of Prince Edward, Spencer was the cause of the aggravation. Edward’s relationship with his son was however a good one. His son felt his opinions were valued and Edward did generally listen to them, with one or two exceptions,
‘Ill win his highness quickly;
A loves me better than a thousand Spencers.’

My own conclusions, in answer to the question, are that Edward II was to some extent responsible for his fate. However I also believe he was partly just not suited, personality wise, to being a King. This I do not think he can be held reasonably responsible for. I believe that, in the end, Edward was a victim of his own birth.

Open Document