It is not often that a strong son succeeds a strong father, and where that is the case the result is not always salutary. If Edward I. had left a son like himself, a new fabric of despotism might have been raised on the foundation of strong government which he had laid. Sometimes such alternations have worked well; a weak administration following on a strong one has enabled the nation to advance all the more firmly and strongly for the discipline to which it has been subjected; and a strong reign following a weak one has taught them how to obtain from the strong successor the consolidation of reforms won from the weakness of the predecessor. But more commonly the result has been a simple reaction, and the weak son has had to bear the consequences of his father’s exercise of power, the strong son has had to repair the mischief caused by his father’s weakness. The case of Edward II., however, does not come exactly under either generalization. It was no mere reaction that caused his reign to stand in so strong contrast to his father’s. Instead of following out his father’s plans he reversed them; and his fate was the penalty exacted by hatreds which he had drawn upon himself, not the result of a reaction upon a policy which he had inherited. He cast away at the beginning of the reign his father’s friends, and he made himself enemies where he ought to have looked for friends, in his own household and within the narrowest circle of home. [Sidenote: Personal tastes and favorites of Edward II. ] [Sidenote: Piers Gaveston. ]