Medieval Intrigue: Decoding Royal Conspiracies

by Ian Mortimer

In this important new work Ian Mortimer examines some of the most controversial questions in medieval history, including whether Edward II was murdered, his possible later life in Italy, the weakness of the Lancastrian claim to the throne in 1399 and the origins of the idea of the royal pretender. Central to this book is his ground-breaking approach to medieval evidence. He explains how an information-based method allows a more certain reading of a series of texts. He criticises existing modes of arriving at consensus and outlines a process of historical analysis that ultimately leads to questioning historical doubts as well as historical facts, with profound implications for what we can say about the past with certainty. This is an important work from one of the most original and popular medieval historians writing today.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Medieval History, Philosophy, Historical, British Literature

391 pages, Hardcover

First published September 16, 2010

About the author

AKA James Forrester.

Dr Ian Mortimer is a historian and novelist, best known for his Time Traveller's Guides series. He has BA, MA, PhD and DLitt degrees from the University of Exeter and UCL. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and was awarded the Alexander Prize by the Royal Historical Society in 2004. Home is the small Dartmoor town of Moretonhampstead, which he occasioanlly introduces in his books. His most recet book, 'Medieval Horizons' looks at how life changed between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries.

He also writes in other genres: his fourth novel 'The Outcasts of Time' won the 2018 Winston Graham Prize for historical fiction. His earlier trilogy of novels set in the 1560s were published under his middle names, James Forrester. In 2017 he wrote 'Why Running Matters' - a memoir of running in the year he turned fifty.

At present he is concentrating on writing history books that have experimental perspectives on the past. One example is a study of England as it would have appeared to the people living in his house over the last thousand years. This is provisionally entitled 'The History of England through the Windows of an Ordinary House'. It is due for completion in December 2024 and publication in 2026.

Reviews

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 2 out of 5]

Repeat yourself much, Mortimer?

[Deborah Pickstone · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting book! It's a collection of historical articles, really, that together demonstrate a methodology for historical enquiry. Mortimer opens with an explanation of his method and then follows with a series of articles about (mainly) the death/disappearance of Edward II. All of the items are linked, even if not directly about this.

So, we analyse Mortimer's hypothesis that the 'death' was a huge conspiracy. Now, the later Plantagenets are not my main field of interest, so I can't criticize factually like I would with the early P's but I have said for years that Edward II's supposed murder via a red hot poker reads like a conspiracy theory. I learned that it very easily could be - but of a completely different sort and the poker was dreamed up sometime later. As was the murder, which he posits never happened.....

It's all delightfully complex and Mortimer builds a very convincing case, I have to say - and this from Ms Cynical who despises conspiracy theories! Howsomever, there is a big difference between an actual conspiracy and conspiracy theory.

My only complaint is that Mortimer includes a section discussing the response of other historians to his work and he does come across rather arrogantly in it. I get that it is very annoying when people pour scorn, damn with faint praise and generally behave obstructively towards any change. And historians are generally resistant to revisionist thinkers - this we know! So, I do have sympathy with his....annoyance and open rebuttal of what has been said etc re his work. I guess I felt he was descending to their level, which is a pity. They certainly do come across as a blinkered lot! But this is a small issue, really - the book is absolutely excellent, he has given me some new lenses to view history through and I will be reading as much of his work as I can lay hands on - I would say he is an outstanding and talented historian and I am delighted to see anyone produce revisionist work on any historical subject - but particularly with regard to something about which the 'traditional' story sat so ill with me in the first place!

NB I see on reading reviews quite a few comments that this is 'hard to read'. It's certainly no Idiot's Guide but I was absolutely riveted by it and lost the whole of Saturday to this book!

[Nicky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating.

Not a book for the casual reader, you really have to know the topics tackled to appreciate Ian Mortimer's work.

Dr Mortimer reveals some of the inner workings of peer reviewed research, and few come out of it well. Several historians are exposed as biased and unable to accept new thinking, even when presented with well thought out work and carefully constructed arguments based on evidence and not opinion. One feels the injustice of this on his behalf.

The research presented is specific and detailed and should form part of the study of anyone interested in Edward II. The facts presented are, to my mind, irrefutable. There is not enough extant evidence to disprove Dr Mortimer's findings. And they are FINDINGS as much as they are beliefs.

However, as well as being a fantastic factual history book, the real value of this book is as a studying in how to research history correctly and objectively, how not to believe something is so simply because you wish it to be. Ignoring or dismissing any document that disagrees with you in the face of evidence distinctly to the contrary is the preserve of the lazy historian, and there are too many of them, (and most appear to have commented on Edward II!)

Anyone embarking on a study of history, about to start university or even A-Level, should read this book and take its methodology to heart. Then maybe the historian of the future will be able to look beyond the hackneyed old opinions and find the truth.

[Elizabeth Ashworth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've come to realise that a lot of what I was taught at school was misinformation. I used to believe all sorts of things - that ostriches buried their heads in sand, that squirrels hibernated in winter, that camels carried water in their humps - and that Edward II was murdered at Berkeley Castle with a red hot poker.

I know that the first three of these statements are untrue and having read Ian Mortimer's book I'm pretty much convinced that the last one is untrue as well. The myth about the red hot poker is definitely nonsense even though it is often repeated as fact. There is convincing evidence that Edward II lived beyond 1327, and a lot of people believed he was still alive, including his half brother the earl of Kent who tried to rescue him from Corfe Castle.

In a series of essays Ian Mortimer discusses and weighs the known evidence for and against the survival of Edward II. I found some parts of the book more interesting than others but I would recommend it to anyone who is open minded enough to wonder whether a good story sometimes gets in the way in the truth.

[Sarah u · Rating 5 out of 5]

'... information based methods are powerful tools that we ignore at our cost.’
This is an excellent history book, which is aimed at those who have knowledge about the events in England around the time of Edward Il's abdication 1327-1331, and the deposition of Richard II in 1399.

In short:
When I read this years ago, I really enjoyed the topics tackled. I was new to the period and although some of the names went over my head, I liked the book.

Rereading this as a postgraduate has been incredibly rewarding. I don’t think I read chapters 8-10 first time, which look at the succession of the crown and the idea of a royal pretender, which was silly of me because they were great. I really enjoyed the detail in the essay about the plot of the Earl of Kent, as my subject knowledge has vastly improved since my first read. This really helped me see the nuance. I’ve enjoyed my reread, I’ve got lots of ideas, and really appreciated the methodology discussed in this work.

[Mercedes Rochelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I bought this book I thought it was a more general “royal conspiracy” topic, but in reality it concerns Edward II (mostly) and Richard II, both of whom were murdered under unexplained circumstances and both of whose murders were followed by survival conspiracies. Because the events are already shrouded in mystery, Mortimer’s “information-based approach” to history is appropriate, considering we have to make many suppositions based on what little—often contradictory—evidence survived. The whole first chapter explains his somewhat controversial approach to history and why he feels it’s necessary. If you accept his premises, the rest follows naturally. He certainly has a gift for breaking down an argument into logical steps. My objections are when he takes his argument a little too far and converts his assumptions into proof. In his conclusion of chapter 9, he says “Certainly it would be foolish to rest an argument on the fact ‘that there is insufficient evidence’.” It seems that he is a historian that hates a vacuum and proceeds to fill it.

This is a book that presupposes the reader already knows the history; the author will not reinvent the wheel and summarize what happens before analyzing it. There were a couple of times I got lost because I’m not all that well versed with the personages surrounding Edward II. In the Richard II history, I would have liked to have known his analysis of the legend surrounding Richard’s escape from Pontefract (in fact, that’s why I bought the book). But he didn’t go there at all; he merely went on to talk about the later conspiracies around the dead king. Although he gives good credence to Edward II’s survival, it appears that he sees Richard II’s survival as apocryphal. Yes, Richard’s face was exposed in the funeral train, but couldn’t it as easily have been the decapitated look-alike Maudeleyn’s face? (This was suggested by other writers along the way.) Maudeleyn isn’t mentioned at all, which makes me wonder what other possibilities have been left out. For a historical fiction writer, Mortimer’s approach is useful; as straight history, I took his conclusions with a proverbial grain of salt.

[Melisende · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am finding it a little 'wordy" and find myself saying - will you just get to the point. This title is a little of a misnomer - in that this really heavily focuses on the mystery surrounding the life & death of Edward II. Would have liked a few more characters featured.

[Eileen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started reading this book as I was also reading the 30th in The Knights Templar series, King’s Gold. As you remember from my earlier review, it takes place while Edward of Caernarfon, formerly King Edward II, is held captive in Kenilworth Castle soon to be transferred to Berkeley Castle.

Dr. Mortimer is a highly respected historian and author of several books including, The Time Traveller’s (sic) Guide to Medieval England, and The Time Traveler's Guide to Elizabethan England, both of which I’ve read. The focus of this book is to dispute the long-held belief by most people that King Edward II was murdered or died of natural causes at Berkeley Castle in 1327.

Dr. Mortimer lays out his arguments with well stated precision using dozens of citations and logical conclusions over 359 heavily footnoted pages. The man is an unbelievably gifted scholar. However, having read the arguments and giving Dr. Mortimer, my absolute respect, I just can’t agree with the conclusions.

You should ask why. I am not a medieval scholar, though I’m fairly well read in this time period. I have lived through and am still living in a time of grand conspiracy theories about almost everything from medical to political. I believe in facts, science, and research.

The question then becomes what is fact and what is not? For certain, the farther away in time, the harder it is to verify the writings. Scholars are unable to talk to people long dead, and so rely on what written accounts they can find. The further back one goes, the fewer written records there are, and there is no way to assure their veracity.

There is also the fact that Edward II’s son, King Edward III, believed his father was dead. He had the embalmed body buried with great pomp and honor in Gloucestershire Cathedral and built him a magnificent tomb with his effigy on it. I just don’t buy that he would spend the money and effort to hide a living father.

If Edward of Caernarfon was still alive, it would have taken dozens of people, including the king, to keep the secret. We all know how hard it is for two people to keep one, let alone dozens all around the country, including nobles, guards, and the peasants who served them.

I do recommend reading this book if you are interested in the time period or specific events. It is well written and just plain fascinating. Read it and make up your own mind.

[Jane Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you picked this book up thinking it was like Mortimer's other popular books (and the cover and title certainly suggest that) you'd be disappointed. This one is hard work and not really for the general reader.
Mortimer has worked long and hard at the theory that Edward II was not murdered in Berkeley Castle, but was sent off into exile and ended his days in Italy. He is hugely frustrated that "scholars" dismiss his ideas without even troubling to engage with the arguments. The bulk of "Medieval Intrigue" (which includes previously published articles) is devoted to presenting the evidence and refuting his critics, in very academic terms. I'm convinced, but Mortimer knows that the history establishment has too much invested in the murder narrative to accept his views.
As an amateur historian I'm still puzzled by Mortimer's argument that there is a difference between his method, based on "information streams", and the conventional method of researching history.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is very dense, and oftentimes, it feels as if the author is just throwing a long string of names, dates, and places at you. It's a lot of information to absorb, so if you aren't a major history buff, this probably won't be your cup of tea. I would actually recommend not reading it cover to cover, as each chapter could be a stand alone article in an academic journal.

Other than that, it is an interesting read, and encourages readers to think twice about the "facts" that have been decided as truth by historians over the centuries. Mortimer offers new ways of thinking about historical events that have more than a little uncertainty surrounding them.

[Denise · Rating 2 out of 5]

Such a fascinating subject, and yet I was left spectacularly bored by this book. The reason for that is not a lack of facts or interesting theories (it certainly has both), but the excessively dry writing and the fact that the author tends to discuss the credibility of his sources to death and drown his text in annotations. Maybe it should come with a "hardcore scholars only" label. (I don't think I've ever seen anyone manage to cram 209 annotations into 45 pages of text before - a bizarrely fascinating achievement, really.)

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely fascinating analysis of the deaths of Edward II and Richard II, looking at sources and the motivations of those who wrote them. Also looks at the process of peer review and the reluctance of some historians to accept new evidence or even new judgements on existing evidence. Dr Mortimer does bang on a bit about that, but you can understand why.

NB - this is a work of academic scholarship and not at all like some of his more accessible works. I enjoyed it and found it a compelling read.

[Pam Shelton-Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was actually expecting something a bit different from this book, but it is clearly centered on the death of Edward II, a topic that the author has presented in other works. In prior work, I found his thesis that Edward did not die in Berkeley Castle as very compelling, though then and still, I struggle with his death in Italy years later. What I found fascinating in this work was his discussion of methodology in historical research (useful also in genealogy) which takes a clinical approach to evaluating sources, data and conjectures. Also well taken is his assertion that the reticence to revisit the veracity of prior historical "facts", is based in "our" discomfort in potentially abandoning things we learned in history in school. Review of these foregone conclusions using a systematic methodology is a much needed action in history and genealogy. Some of the other parts of the book, I felt that my level of scholarship was insufficient for me to assess the points being made, but I intend to re-read the first part discussing the methodology a few more times.

[Éowyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very interesting book, but also quite hard going in places. I understand what Mortimer is getting at and his approach is sensible and logical. He looks at different information sources and talks about determining reliability.

I found his case for the survival of Edward II convincing - I had already for some time considered that the red-hot poker story was an unlikely piece of later propaganda. I also feel his frustration with the 'traditionalists' who seem unable or unwilling to consider anything that deviates from their orthodoxy.

Not as easily readable as his Time Traveller's Guides, but still gives one plenty to consider.

[Sarah]

Abandoned on page 46 of 375. This is clearly an academic book. The excellence of the writing however is witnessed by the fact that the author held my attention through the whole first chapter “Objectivity and information:a methodological approach” despite my complete lack of any relevant expertise. I only abandoned the book when the second chapter made it clear I’d need a whole lot more knowledge of the period than I have to follow the discussion. I will stick to the author’s more popular books. However from what I did read I am certain this is a 5 star book for the relevant audience. My one complaint would be the book is not clearly an academic book from the outside.

[Laurie Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating. A little dry and repetitive but still fascinating.

[Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book for those who are already familiar with the events described as this is not an introducting, but more of an eye-opening account of the deeply flawed peer-review system in the UK. Old-school scholar such as J.S. Hamilton, R.M. Haines, Seymour Phillips and David Carpenter are all exposed as the smug and corrupt fossils that they are, unable and unwilling to tolerate the mere idea that they could be mistaken, even when the facts point against the deeply flawed traditional account that they’ve espoused for decades. As Mortimer points out, all these professors have been deeply disingenuous in their counter-arguments against the strong case for Edward II’s survival. As they are unable to refute anything Mortimer has written, they stoop to idle speculation, misrepresent the opposing argument, misread evidence, claim events took place despite a lack of evidence, and simply just claim Mortimer’s explanations are improbable, unplausible, or disingenuous without any further justification for why they think so. They are a disgrace to their profession in my opinion.

Similarly, ”Eileen” below is guilty of the same, when she makes the bold claim that:

” There is also the fact that Edward II’s son, King Edward III, believed his father was dead.”

That is a false statement, as Eileen would know if she had indeed paid attention. That is not a fact. Eileen, like Carpenter et.al. just ”feel” the case for Edward II’s survival is unconvincing based on a misunderstanding of or ignorance of the actual facts.

For those who have read the book with an open mind and avoid desperately trying to change some pieces of information to fit their own preconceived ideas while ignoring others entirely it is clear that Edward II’s survival must be the default position henceforth.

Rebuttals, in particular by academics, must be much more serious than: ”It is unconvincing, I find it unplausible, I have great authority let’s discuss this no further!”

[Jessica O'Toole · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started with Ian Mortimer's books back with 'The Greatest Traitor', and so was well familiar with his Edward II fake-death scenario (which I ascribe to). Though the cover does suggest a more light reading or pop-history-mystery kind of book (after 'Time Traveller's' it's not an unwarranted expectation), Ian Mortimer is still a professional historian, and so it was of little surprise to find a book full of more academic-based essays, to reply to all the backlash of his view about Edward II. Welcome, in my humble opinion.

I bloody loved it. I devoured it almost non-stop in fact, and one question after another in my head was answered about the puzzle of Edward II, questions that built up since 'The Greatest Traitor' and the incredible twisted web of secrecy in the Middle Ages. I bought the book primarily for the sections on Edward II (surely history should have remembered him as the Poker King, right?) but found the intrigue of the cover in the sections of royal pretenders and blurry lines of succession just as fascinating, as I knew little about those subjects and how deep they went in the Middle Ages. The poker thing is so astonishingly boring in comparison to the finely woven lines of a secret survival!

I'm inclined to enjoy scholarly texts just as much as popular literature, but if you base your purchase of this volume only on your love of the Time Traveller series, then I highly recommend familiarising yourself with both 'The Greatest Traitor' and 'The Perfect King' first (and even 'The Fears of Henry IV' considering the succession sections), for necessary background on the author's attentions and an ease into the drier aspects of this work. They are balanced and readable factual books, and you might find yourself much more sucked in by the hardcore history of this one afterwards. Plus, Plantagenets. 'Nuff said.

[Vivienne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I granted this 4-stars even though I had difficulty reading it. It is not the author's fault that I lacked the background in order to appreciate his arguments.

I picked this book up in the library because I was curious to learn more about the controversy surrounding the death of Edward II and the Fieschi Letter following my reading of Ken Follett's World Without End and watching its TV adaptation. My expectation was that it would be similar in style to his Time Travellers Guides; that is accessible to a layperson. I soon realised that it was scholarly in its approach and content and much more suited to an academic readership than to someone like myself.

I could recognise its worth and did take on board the issues being discussed but was aware that I didn't have the background in Historiography required to be able to follow Mortimer's arguments for his innovative information method, which seeks to apply a scientific model to the study of primary sources. Frankly, I knew I was out of my depth.

I spoke to one of the librarians at our local branch when I returned the book and she was going to pass it on to one of her colleagues who is a medieval scholar for his opinion.

My feeling is that while I was able to understand that Edward II's death and other issues addressed within are highly contested subjects that I wouldn't really re-visit this book unless I decided to study medieval history as a discipline.

[Xenia0201 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had read Mortimer's A Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England and really loved it so I didn't hesitate picking up Medieval Intrigue.

This book I found more difficult to process as it was composed in a thesis format, complete with hypotheses in charts. Mortimer even has an entire chapter dedicated to coming to a degree of certainty with historical evidence before we dive into the true subject matter of the book. Here, he gives a basis of how he comes to certain conclusions and why this is based on factual information and not his opinion as a historian. His intent is to come to the truth and not to re-write history based on point of view. Medieval Intrigue is concerned with the theories and rumors surrounding scandalous events occuring in the reigns of Edward II, Edward III and Richard II. The subject matter is absolutely capitvating but difficult for the average reader to process in the language used. Mortimer, as always, is scrupulous in his research and provides step by step exactly why he comes to his deductions for each subject. It's truly an exceptional account but exudes a scholarly approach geared towards a reader with advanced familiarity of the history discussed.

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

My Review:

As we have learned repeatedly throughout history (most recently with the unearthing of Richard III), history is almost always written by the victor. In this book, we look at another Plantagenet King in Edward II - with an equally if not exceedingly thrilling history cloaked under a shroud of mystery/historical propaganda. I have read Mortimer before quite enjoyed his take on the King's tumultuous reign.

-Rose

[Andrew Daniels · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was more academic and less salacious then I expected

This is really for hardcore academics who already know all the history and want to hear more about the different academic positions on this history.

we get sentences like this:
"In trying to answer this question we need to consider the evidence in its
precise political context as well as the cultural framework of fourteenth-
century society"

i didn't finish

[Kathy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mortimer has taken as his mantra "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and goes about castigating any critic who disagrees. Rather than using evidence as examined by historians (and others), he has developed an "information stream" system that he explains (or not) at great length. I would not have imagined that history could be boring until I read this book.

[Kris]

I'm going to have to get back to this one. It wasn't what I expected going in, which is okay--I adjusted. I also set it down, though, and haven't got back to it. When I dive back in, I'll post my thoughts.

[Jaime · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars Fascinating (to me) subject matter, dry but earnest delivery.

[Diana · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit too detailed and 'theoretical' for my liking, but then I guess I'm not a historian.

[Andrea Hickman Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Far heavier on theory and methodology than I either expected or wanted.

[David Elkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

a read for a history buff. Somewhat detailed and speculative historical detective work. You best really be interested in Edward II and Richard III.