Many thanks for this. I always believe "other" possibilities should not be
ignored, not until it is properly and safely established that they are
wrong.
Thank goodness no longer do we hear about the possibility that Anna Anderson
is Anastasia.
I was in touch with Dr. Ian Mortimer a while ago, and he made it then clear
he knew he is not of the same Mortimer family.
Having said that, living on the same island as Roger Mortimer did hundreds
of years ago, who knows whether there are other genealogical
links----but he is not interested and doesn't want to know.
I think the historical Mortimer family is well and truly extinct in the male
line, but as so often is the case there are other, unrelated families with
the same surname.
With best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Death of Edward II
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1186100791.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Brice,
On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the
biography of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least should
be acknowledged.
Quite right, Leo - I think Mortimer is wrong, but it is certainly proper
to acknowledge the theory that used to be dismissed but which he & some
others have been arguing for over the past 30 years.
It is also worth noting that unlike most supporters of the revisionist
idea he does not rely on the Fieschi letter: in his _English Historical
Review_ article of 2005 (cited by Brice at the start of this thread)
Mortimer states "In determining whether Edward died in 1327 or not, the
Fieschi letter is a distraction".
That is practically the only point in his analysis on which I can agree
with him.
It should also be noted that Mortimer dedicated his 2003 biography of his
most famous namesake to his father "who took me to Wigmore Castle as a
child...and always encouraged me to explore my fascination with the past".
He doesn't say when he learned - maybe not on the same childhood visit -
that there was no family connection.
Over the years he has clearly learned to identify emotionally, if not
genealogically, with the 1st earl of March, for instance asserting "one
has to say that Roger's greatest crime was that he was not a member of the
royal family" and "There is no reason to doubt that Roger did love
Isabella deeply". Even more oddly, in Mills & Boone mode, he suggests that
Isabella's burial in her wedding dress "does not necessarily indicate she
turned from Roger's memory, for he may well have been in Edward's company
at the royal wedding in Boulogne, and thus would first have seen her in
this dress". He fails to note that she was also buried with Edward II's
heart, that presumably Roger dearest had never seen her with. Rum.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message