Waspie_Dwarf Posted July 7, 2014 #1 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Was Edward the Black Prince really a nasty piece of work? A newly discovered letter that has lain unread for over 600 years is forcing a rethink of a 14th Century prince with a controversial reputation, writes Luke Foddy.He was the superstar of his age, winning his spurs in battle aged just 16. But the reputation of Edward of Woodstock - or the Black Prince, as he has become known to history - is still the subject of the same type of dispute that rages over the reputations of Richard III and Oliver Cromwell. Read more... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted July 7, 2014 #2 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Two points..... Edward wasn't known as 'The Black Prince' until almost 200 years after his death. Although his actions at Limoge were reprehensible, Edward was very ill at the time, which may have affected his temper. To be honest, he wasn't much more bloodthirsty than most other leaders at that period in history. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now