In the middle of the fourteenth century, the chronicler, Jean le Bel of Liège, who was an admirer of the English crown, who had first-hand knowledge of England and who was writing in the aftermath of the great victories of Edward III, remarked, ‘it was commonly believed in England, and had often happened since the time of King Arthur, that a less able king would often come between two valiant monarchs’. Thus Edward I, who was wise, a man of prowess, bold and enterprising and fortunate in war, who conquered the Scots three or four times, was succeeded by Edward II, who did not resemble him either in wisdom or in prowess, who governed savagely and with the advice of others, and who was defeated with all his barons by King Robert of Scotland at the battle of Bannockburn.

The papers which were originally delivered at the symposium on Edward II held at the University of Nottingham on 16 and 17 July 2004 may be allowed to speak for themselves, but a few introductory remarks are needed. The first is that, given the general verdict both of contemporaries and of posterity that the reign of Edward II was an inglorious and disastrous one, it may be asked why there is such an enduring interest in Edward II. In part, perhaps, this reflects the search by historians for significance and for constitutional ‘lessons’ to be drawn from his reign; but it also reflects the fact that Edward II has never been the ‘possession’ solely of historians and that other traditions have built up, and continue to build up around him.