Here are how fourteenth-century chroniclers described Edward II's appearance:
"Tall and strong, a fine figure of a handsome man." From the Vita Edwardi Secundi, written during Edward II's reign by a very well-informed royal clerk who must have seen Edward often. The writer expressed a wish when Edward's son Edward III was born in November 1312 that the boy would grow up to "remind us of the physical strength and comeliness of his father."
"Physically he was one of the strongest men in the realm." Written some decades later in the Scalacronica by Sir Thomas Gray, whose father of the same name was captured fighting for Edward II at Bannockburn and who later served in the retinue of the Despensers.
"Of a well-formed and handsome person." A description of Edward aged sixteen at the siege of Caerlaverock in 1300, by a poet who presumably saw him in person.
" A handsome man, strong of body and limb." Anonimalle, 1330s.
"Elegant, of outstanding strength." Probably 1330s, from the Bridlington chronicle Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon (Deeds of Edward of Caernarfon).
"Fair of body and great of strength." From the Polychronicon of c. 1350.
There are no physical descriptions of Edward II which contradict the picture given here, that he was tall, enormously strong and good-looking. I don't see why there's any reason to doubt that he was indeed tall, enormously strong and good-looking. The remains of his father Edward I ('Longshanks') were examined in 1774, and he was found to have been six feet two inches. I'm virtually certain that Edward II was also at least six feet tall.
What do we know otherwise about his appearance? Sadly there is no detailed description of his hair and eye colour, complexion and so on. Looking at the illustrations of him below, however, I think it's reasonable to assume that he had long, wavy or curly fair hair which he wore parted in the middle and framing his face, falling to chin level or thereabouts, perhaps almost to his shoulders. Later in life, at least, he had a beard. (Edward II Fact of the Day: his barber in the mid-1320s and probably earlier was called Henry. There's a nice record of the two men playing cross and pile together in 1326; Edward had to borrow five shillings from Henry in order to play, which he later reimbursed.)
|Probably Edward II, from a manuscript dating to his time; a king dining alone.|
|Edward II's effigy at Gloucester Cathedral.|
|Edward II, from a manuscript of 1326/27.|
|Edward II, from a manuscript illustration where his father gives him the crown.|
I've also written a couple of posts here and here about Edward II's eccentric hobbies and interests, to wit, swimming and rowing, hedging, thatching roofs, digging ditches, shoeing horses and working with wrought iron. More conventionally, he loved hunting, but not jousting; I don't know of any record where he ever did so, though his son and half-brothers loved it. I don't know why, but would speculate that as for a long time he was his father's only surviving son and heir, and as jousting killed several noblemen in Edward's childhood - the earl of Surrey's son in 1286, Duke John I of Brabant in 1294, father-in-law of Edward's sister Margaret - his father forbade him from competing on the grounds that it was too dangerous. What would happen to England if the king's only son were killed? Disaster. And then when Edward was older, he'd never be able to compete properly against men who had been practising for many years. Just speculation, but otherwise it seems odd for Edward not to have enjoyed the universal pastime of men of his class. His love of eccentric (for the time) hobbies is borne out by chroniclers, Edward's own accounts and the statement at his deposition that his willingness to "give himself up always to improper works and occupations" had led him to neglect the business of running his kingdom.
The one thing you notice about Edward's hobbies is that most of them took place outdoors, and many of them involved manual labour, and an amount of skill and dexterity. The king spent an entire month out of doors in the autumn of 1315, swimming and rowing with a large group of his subjects. Combine this love of demanding physical exercise with the descriptions of Edward's enormous strength, above - a strength which seems to have been widely known about in his own lifetime and afterwards - and a picture builds up of what Edward really looked like, the kind of person he really was. A big tall strong man who enjoyed using his own body, perhaps enjoyed pushing himself to his physical limits, perhaps revelled in his own remarkable physical abilities. Such a man is the absolute antithesis of the utterly feeble, camp little fop claimed to be 'Edward, prince of Wales' in a certain popular and influential Hollywood film of nearly twenty years ago, no? And I really do have to wonder where on earth the writer of a book published in 2006 gets the notion that Isabella "had known only the smooth girlish hands of Edward upon her; in their most intimate joining her husband must have fantasized that he was actually making love to Piers Gaveston. And now this heated warrior [Roger Mortimer] took her, roughly at first, then tenderly. And he never, ever imagined she was a man." (Bold mine.)
And this book pretends to be non-fiction. The mind boggles. There is so much wrong there I don't even know where to start. As we've seen in this post, if ever a human being is vanishingly unlikely to have had 'smooth girlish hands', it's Edward II, and this portrayal owes everything to stereotypes relating to sexuality and nothing at all to reality. It derives from the same mentality as the statement in a 2005 book that Roger Mortimer "was everything that Edward II was not: strong, manly, unequivocally heterosexual, virile, courageous, audacious and decisive." Here, yet again, we see Roger Mortimer presented on minimal evidence as the anti-Edward II, as though the two men existed not as complex human beings but as cardboard cutouts fit only to be squeezed into false, silly, meaningless, contrived - not to mention highly offensive - dichotomies like this. We do not and cannot know that Edward did not enjoy making love with Isabella, or even, for that matter, that Roger did. How on earth can anyone write a book in the twenty-first century and say that Edward II was not strong? And what do 'manly' and 'virile' really mean anyway? Let's face it, they're two words only ever applied to straight men, or men assumed to be straight. Edward II fathered children with two women, was hugely strong, far more so than Roger Mortimer, it seems safe to assume, yet no-one ever calls him 'manly and virile' because, it seems safe to assume, he wasn't straight. Always interesting to see how some writers allow their prejudices and outdated assumptions to colour their narrative. The makers of the Hollywood film did the same thing, of course, turning Edward into a caricature, and so have many novels, even when it flies in the face of a wealth of historical evidence to the contrary. Shame on you all, perpetuators of cruel stereotypes.