Mortimer book

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

Mortimer book

Legg inn av John Parsons » 05 okt 2004 17:18:06

Mr Webb needs to brush up on his netiquette. It is not acceptable practice
to publish a private email to an open discussion list without the original
poster's consent.

In general I need only remark that, as will be obvious from my original
email to Mr Webb, I did not directly address the Mortimer book. I discussed
a general human tendency to espouse legends about the survival of eminent
people who come to untimely and untoward ends. I am at a loss to explain
why or how he drew the conclusions from my email that he did.

As is usual with such tirades, in any event, Mr Webb has only succeeded in
telling us much more about himself than about me or anything I said in my
original posting.

I don't usually engage in detailed responses to such messages as this, but I
have made an exception here. There are a few responses in passing.


From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Roger Mortimer: Ian Mortimer's biography
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:36:03 GMT

I have received this moronic posting from a twit called John Parsons, and
rather than reply to >>him personally, I thought I would share it with the
group instead. You have to scroll down a long >>way to find my comments.

David,

This legend surfaces from time to time along with those of many celebrities
over the centuries >who met sudden & violent ends but were subsequently
"resurrected" in popular legend. Elvis is a >recent example; in my
lifetime, JFK has been described as alive but severely handicapped from his
wounds, living in a secret nursing home near Dallas (of all places!); at
one time or another in the >20th century all 5 of Nicholas II's
children--not only Anastasia--were "identified" wandering in >penniless
exile; Louis XVI's son the Lost Dauphin was impersonated by an American
Indian half->breed in Pennsylvania (Mark Twain unmasked him--that's why
Twain included the "King" and >the "Duke" in *Huck Finn*), while a German
pretender named Naundorff, & his family, pestered >the life out of Louis
XVI's daughter until she died in 1851 (that fraud has been nailed by DNA
tests which proved years ago that Naundorff was not a Bourbon); & so on and
on and on. Even >more recently than Elvis, Diana and Dodi al-Fayed
legendarily survived the crash in Paris and were >iving in happy seclusion
on a South Pacific island.

In the Middle Ages, the Christian [I should have said "Latin" here]
Byzantine Emperor, Henry of >Flanders, was impersonated years after he died
in the East; there were longstanding rumors
that the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was not dead; and the tragic
little Maid of Norway, >Queen of Scotland, was impersonated long after her
death in 1290 by a woman who was >eventually burned at the stake for her
presumptuousness.

The question why human nature doesn't want to accept that eminent people
can die like the >rest of us mortals, especially in any untoward fashion,
is one that requires a lot of investigation. >Perhaps it never will be
fully answered b/c it lies so deep within our collective psyche. Possibly
we >just find it too hard to deal with the shock of such a death and deal
with it in escapist ways.

No reputable academic historians currently accept the "evidence" that
Edward II escaped Berkeley >Castle. The rumors are the kind of stuff
writers like Thomas Costain delight in rehashing. Edward >was killed at
Berkeley, but the tale that he was murdered by 15 men holding him down &
someone shoving a red-hot poker in a certain place is probably
exaggerated, if it is true at all. Just >think of the last gridiron
football game you saw: what does it look like when just a few men pile >on
another player? With 15 men on top, it would be a miracle if the guy with
the poker got it in >the right orifice.


OK. What is the evidence that Edward II died from a red-hot poker? If you
can't answer that
question, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails. The book makes quite
clear that the >>earliest chroniclers in the south of England, nearer to
the action, had Edward II suffocated to >>death. Later chroniclers in the
north of England had him skewered on a poker. The latter story >>grew in
the telling. But if you examine all the chronicles and look at the place
of writing, date >>of writing, you see that suffocation is the earlier
rumour.


I did not state, Mr Webb, that the red-hot poker story explains how Edward
really died. I state in the preceding paragraph that this story is almost
certainly NOT true. It is you who are in error here.
In fact the late and northern origins of the poker story have been noted by
any number of writers, especially the recent biographers of Edward's
supposed lover, Piers Gaveston. Mr Mortimer is not the first writer to have
emphasized this point.


Edward's body was exposed to public view & nobody at the time insisted the
corpse on display was not the king's.

Another moronic point by someone who has not read the book. Edward II's
body was not >>exposed to public view. The body, whosever it was, was
eviscerated and embalmed and
covered with a cerecloth in line with mediaeval custom. No one could see
whose body was >>below the cloth. His face was not on view and neither
was any other part of his body. >>The "public viewing" of the
cerecloth-covered corpse only began a month after the supposed >>murder.
If you don't know these points, you shouldn't be sending me stupid emails,
you moron.

This reading of events would completely negate the reasons for exposing the
body, which was done to prove that Edward was dead. If the body wasn't
visible, viewing would have accomplished nothing in that regard. I don't
know how thoroughly Mr Mortimer has done his homework (and you, Mr Webb,
should deal more openly with the possibility that any author can slip up
somewhere, no matter how admirable you may find his or her work), but I have
read elsewhere, in reliable accounts, that the body was exposed immediately
after Edward's death and that the face was clearly visible.


That Edward's half-brother was put to death 3 years later, after he
gullibly bought into the rumors >that the king was alive, argues strongly
that the government knew perfectly well Edward II
was dead. A member of the royal family, a king's son, would never have been
executed if Queen >Isabella and Mortimer had any suspicions Edward II was
alive. The earl of Kent would not have >been beheaded if the king was
alive.

The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the nobles
had begun to >>spread that Edward II was still alive. If Edward II was
still alive, Edward III, Mortimer and Queen >>Isabella would all be
traitors, so they killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up.
Mortimer >>before he was hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had been
wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley ->>whose message to the court that Edward
II was dead prompted the mock funeral - said in his >>trial that as far as
he knew Edward II was still alive. If you don't know any of this, you
shouldn't >>be sending me moronic emails.

If Edward II was still alive in 1330, Mr Webb, the earl of Kent's position
would have been valid and the Isabella-Mortimer regency would have had no
justification for beheading a member of the royal family. That Kent was
executed indicates that Isabella and Mortimer knew Edward was dead. As to
the confessions you mention, Mortimer naturally needed to make a "good end"
and knew enough to say what he realized Edward III wanted him to say--the
ultimate survival of Mortimer's family could well depend on his compliance.
Berkeley would have had every reason to dissociate himself as far as
possible from any complicity in Edward II's death and suggesting that Edward
might still be alive was an obvious way to accomplish that.


Likewise, Isabella's burial with her late husband's heart within her tomb
was an act of perpetual >contrition that no medieval lady would have
undertaken in hypocrisy: if Isabella had not known >Edward was dead, & if
she had not felt her responsibility for his death, she would not have had
his
heart buried with her. To argue that she did so merely to perpetuate the
fiction of his death is to >misunderstand the faith of the Christian Middle
Ages.


Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and so
was quite possibly >>buried with the real heart. If you don't know that
Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't >>be sending me stupid
emails.

As it happens, Mr Webb, I wrote the bio of Isabella that appears in the
recently released edition of the DNB. As a Ph.D. in medieval history I am
well aware that she died in 1358, thirty-one years after Edward II was
murdered. What you (and/or Mr Mortimer) need to explain is how and why
Isabella would have gone to the trouble of having the "real" Edward's heart
fetched from Italy (or wherever) in 1341 (or whenever).

John P.

David Webb

Re: Mortimer book

Legg inn av David Webb » 05 okt 2004 18:30:07

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY11-F14OIdyUvmt9L0001cddf@hotmail.com...
Mr Webb needs to brush up on his netiquette. It is not acceptable
practice
to publish a private email to an open discussion list without the original
poster's consent.

In general I need only remark that, as will be obvious from my original
email to Mr Webb, I did not directly address the Mortimer book.

Exactly! That's my point too! You attempted to refute a theory whose logic
you did not know,a s you hadn't read the book!!!


I discussed
a general human tendency to espouse legends about the survival of eminent
people who come to untimely and untoward ends. I am at a loss to explain
why or how he drew the conclusions from my email that he did.

This is an irrelevance. This has nothing to do with the argument in the
book.


As is usual with such tirades, in any event, Mr Webb has only succeeded in
telling us much more about himself than about me or anything I said in my
original posting.

I exposed you and your thought processes.


I did not state, Mr Webb, that the red-hot poker story explains how Edward
really died. I state in the preceding paragraph that this story is almost
certainly NOT true. It is you who are in error here.
In fact the late and northern origins of the poker story have been noted
by
any number of writers, especially the recent biographers of Edward's
supposed lover, Piers Gaveston. Mr Mortimer is not the first writer to
have
emphasized this point.

OK, so I was right.


This reading of events would completely negate the reasons for exposing
the Ok,
body, which was done to prove that Edward was dead. If the body wasn't
visible, viewing would have accomplished nothing in that regard. I don't
know how thoroughly Mr Mortimer has done his homework (and you, Mr Webb,
should deal more openly with the possibility that any author can slip up
somewhere, no matter how admirable you may find his or her work), but I
have
read elsewhere, in reliable accounts, that the body was exposed
immediately
after Edward's death and that the face was clearly visible.


Of course Mr Mortimer could have slipped up. I asked for comments expecting
that someone might know where he slipped up. I suppose this is your first
engagement with the theory in the book. 14th century accounts make it clear
that the body was exposed only after a month and no contemporary chronicleer
says the face was visible.

The execution of the Earl of Kent is proof that knowledge among the
nobles
had begun to >>spread that Edward II was still alive. If Edward II was
still alive, Edward III, Mortimer and Queen >>Isabella would all be
traitors, so they killed the Earl of Kent as part of the cover-up.
Mortimer >>before he was hanged confessed that the Earl of Kent had been
wrongfully killed. Lord Berkeley ->>whose message to the court that
Edward
II was dead prompted the mock funeral - said in his >>trial that as far
as
he knew Edward II was still alive. If you don't know any of this, you
shouldn't >>be sending me moronic emails.

If Edward II was still alive in 1330, Mr Webb, the earl of Kent's position
would have been valid and the Isabella-Mortimer regency would have had no
justification for beheading a member of the royal family.

No one was expecting the Earl of Kent to be executed for trying to rescue
his brother. He did reveal during the trial that the Pope had asked him to
rescue Edward II.

That Kent was
executed indicates that Isabella and Mortimer knew Edward was dead.

or that they didn't want it to get out that he was alive...

As to
the confessions you mention, Mortimer naturally needed to make a "good
end"
and knew enough to say what he realized Edward III wanted him to say--the
ultimate survival of Mortimer's family could well depend on his
compliance.


Possibly.


Berkeley would have had every reason to dissociate himself as far as
possible from any complicity in Edward II's death and suggesting that
Edward
might still be alive was an obvious way to accomplish that.


he was one person who must have known. Berkeley was acquitted of all charges
in 1337 shortly after Edward III received the letter about Edward II's
whereabouts from Bishop Fieschi.

Isabella was buried many years after Edward II's real death in 1341 and so
was quite possibly >>buried with the real heart. If you don't know that
Queen Isabella died after 1341, you shouldn't >>be sending me stupid
emails.

As it happens, Mr Webb, I wrote the bio of Isabella that appears in the
recently released edition of the DNB. As a Ph.D. in medieval history I am
well aware that she died in 1358, thirty-one years after Edward II was
murdered. What you (and/or Mr Mortimer) need to explain is how and why
Isabella would have gone to the trouble of having the "real" Edward's
heart
fetched from Italy (or wherever) in 1341 (or whenever).

John P.


Mr Mortimer explains that the corpse representing Ed II was probably
replaced by the real one in 1341, so that in 1343 Edward III makes a
pilgrimage to Gloucester... He also explains that the Lombards brought
Edward II masquerading as royal imposter William the Welshman to see him in
Koblenz in 1338. Unlike other imposters and cranks, William the Welshman
journeyed with the king to Antwerp and stayd with the royal family for 3
weeks!

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»