Editing Edward II of England (section)

===Controversies===
Controversy rapidly surrounded Edward's death.<ref>{{Harvnb|Rubin|2006|p=55}}.</ref> With Mortimer's execution in 1330, rumours began to circulate that Edward had been murdered at Berkeley Castle. Accounts that he had been killed by the insertion of a red-hot iron or [[Fire iron|poker]] into his [[anus]] slowly began to spread, possibly as a result of deliberate propaganda; chroniclers in the mid-1330s and 1340s disseminated this account further, supported in later years by [[Geoffrey le Baker]]'s colourful account of the killing.<ref>{{Harvnb|Prestwich|2003|p=88}}; {{Harvnb|Phillips|2011|p=562}}; {{Harvnb|Ormrod|2006|pp=37–38}}; {{Harvnb|Mortimer|2004|pp=191–194}}.</ref> It became incorporated into most later histories of Edward, typically being linked to his possible homosexuality.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ormrod|2006|pp=37–39}}.</ref> Most historians now dismiss this account of Edward's death, querying the logic in his captors murdering him in such an easily detectable fashion.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mortimer|2004|pp=193–194}}; {{Harvnb|Phillips|2011|p=563}}.</ref>{{Efn|Initial sources either did not suggest that Edward had been murdered at all, or suggested that he had been suffocated or strangled. The first sources to begin to successfully popularise the "anal rape" narrative were the longer ''Brut'' and ''Polychronicon'' chronicles in the mid-1330s and 1340s, respectively. One of Edward's biographers, Seymour Phillips, notes that while the hot iron story could be true, it is much more likely that he was suffocated, noting that the account of the red-hot iron seems suspiciously similar to earlier accounts of the murder of King [[Edmund Ironside]]; the similarities to this earlier story are also highlighted by [[Ian Mortimer (historian)|Ian Mortimer]] and [[Pierre Chaplais]]. His other biographer, Roy Haines, makes no reference at all to the red-hot poker story. Ian Mortimer, who argues that Edward did not die in 1327, naturally disputes the "anal rape" story. Paul Doherty notes that modern historians take the "lurid description of Edward's death with more than a pinch of salt". [[Michael Prestwich]] has noted that most of Geoffrey le Baker's story "belongs to the world of romance rather than of history", but has also noted that Edward "very possibly" died from the insertion of a red-hot iron.<ref>{{Harvnb|Phillips|2011|pp=562–564}}; {{Harvnb|Haines|2003}}; {{Harvnb|Mortimer|2006|pp=51, 55}}; {{Harvnb|Doherty|2004|p=131}}; {{Harvnb|Prestwich|2007|p=219}}.</ref>}}
 
Another set of theories surround the possibility that Edward did not really die in 1327. These theories typically involve the "[[Fieschi Letter]]", sent to Edward&nbsp;III by an Italian priest called Manuel Fieschi, who claimed that Edward escaped Berkeley Castle in 1327 with the help of a servant and ultimately retired to become a hermit in the [[Holy Roman Empire]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Doherty|2004|pp=185–188}}.</ref> The body buried at Gloucester Cathedral was said to be that of the porter of Berkeley Castle, killed by the assassins and presented by them to Isabella as Edward's corpse to avoid punishment.<ref>{{Harvnb|Doherty|2004|pp=186–188}}.</ref> The letter is often linked to an account of Edward&nbsp;III meeting with a man called William the Welshman in [[Antwerp]] in 1338, who claimed to be Edward&nbsp;II.<ref>{{Harvnb|Doherty|2004|p=213}}.</ref> Some parts of the letter's content are considered broadly accurate by historians, although other aspects of its account have been criticised as implausible.<ref>{{Harvnb|Doherty|2004|pp=189–208}}; {{Harvnb|Haines|2003|pp=222–229}}.</ref> A few historians have supported versions of its narrative. [[Paul C. Doherty]] questions the veracity of the letter and the identity of William the Welshman, but nonetheless has suspicions that Edward may have survived his imprisonment.<ref>{{Harvnb|Doherty|2004|pp=213–217}}.</ref> The [[popular historian]] [[Alison Weir]] believes the events in the letter to be essentially true, using the letter to argue that Isabella was innocent of murdering Edward.<ref>{{Harvnb|Weir|2006|pp=285–291}}.</ref> and [[Natalie Fryde]] has claimed that Edward's survival is "a possibility".<ref>{{cite book |last=Bradbury |first=Jim |author-link=Jim Bradbury |date=2007 |title=The Capetians |location=London |publisher=Continuum Books |page=286 |isbn=978-1-85285-528-4}}</ref> The historian [[Ian Mortimer (historian)|Ian Mortimer]] suggests that the story in Fieschi's letter is broadly accurate, but argues that it was in fact Mortimer and Isabella who had Edward secretly released, and who then faked his death, a fiction later maintained by Edward&nbsp;III when he came to power.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mortimer|2005}}; {{Harvnb|Mortimer|2008|pp=408–410}}.</ref> Ian Mortimer's account was criticised by most scholars when it was first published, in particular by historian [[David Carpenter (historian)|David Carpenter]], who argues that there is no "convincing evidence for Edward’s survival, let alone for it being the result of a Mortimer plot”.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mortimer|2008|p=408}}; {{Cite news |last=Carpenter |first=David |date=7 June 2007 |title=What Happened to Edward II? |pages=32–34 |work=London Review of Books |url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n11/david-carpenter/what-happened-to-edward-ii |access-date=20 April 2014}}</ref>{{Efn|For a critique of the theory that Edward&nbsp;II survived his imprisonment, see David Carpenter's review in the ''London Review of Books'', and Roy Haines's biography of Edward.<ref>{{Harvnb|Carpenter|2007|pages=32–34}}; {{Harvnb|Haines|2003|pp=234–237}}.</ref>}}