The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March [Paperback]

Where were history books like this when I was at school?

Mortimer's account of the actions of his namesake is gripping, exciting and at the same time wince-inducing.

There is no doubt that England in the early 1300s was not a green and pleasant land to live in. The behaviour of the noble classes was anything but noble; self-interest was their driving force.

This book traces the story behind the overthrow of King Edward II because he had become a self-absorbed tyrant who flouted his cornation oath and the laws of the land. It is obviously hard to delve deeply into the minds of people who left little in the way of written records. A historian has to rely on tidbits and implications. Nonetheless, I found this book to be absorbing and exciting.

The pace is excellent, and luckily for the reader, there is a reasonable narrative to follow. In addition, the author has avoided the problem of peoples' names changing as they inherit titles, and so on. This latter aspect can make the reading of medieval history very trying.

Another reviewer has accused the author of revisionism. This is the sort of allegation that is always thrown against a proponent of a radical or alternative perspective.

There is NO doubt that the limited scope for free expression and constant pressure applied by the Church would have made the discussion of Edward's sexuality a taboo for many centuries. What the author has done is to look at the king and judge his behaviour, rather than his sexuality. Edward's habit of rewarding his favourites at the expense of others was his undoing, as much as his refysal to listen to wise counsel.

I would heartily recommend this book to anyone with a keen interest in the history of England.

Ian Mortimer does a grand job in shining a light on a dark corner of English history. I first came across the notorious Roger Mortimer years ago as a kid when my father took me on a guided trip to 'Mortimer's Hole', Roger's hiding place at Nottingham Castle. There wasn't much said about Roger, just that he murdered King Edward II and ruled the realm before being undone in 1330 by the young Edward III. Ian Mortimer puts flesh on his bones here, with a meticulously researched account of his life with some compelling detail [such as Roger's grandfather keeping Simon de Montfort's head as a souvenir]and well drawn portraits of Roger and his supporting cast - Aymer de Valence, for example, emerges as a fascinating character.

Ian Mortimer convincingly puts Roger's alleged villainy into context and makes us sympathise with him and the actions he took against an incompetent and inadequate ruler. The self-interested and sort-sighted acts of Edward II and the other members of the ruling order remind us that a corrupt political elite is far from a recent phenomenon.

The book is excellent throughout, but perhaps Ian Mortimer overeggs the pudding with his insistent support for the conspiracy theory that Edward II survived his stint in Berkley Castle and lived on for years in exile in Italy. I suppose this does help to put a new angle on the story and there just may be something in it, but I don't think the evidence as displayed here is really convincing. Similar stories have been circulated about a number of historical figures [Richard II during his usurper Henry IV's reign and Richard Duke of York during Henry VII's time], but all make more sense as opportunist political plots. Edward II's alleged survival doesn't seem to me any more likely. But whether you buy the revisionism or not, this a well-written and fascinating book.

Mortimer has done what is almost impossible today: a truly well researched and engaging biography with the blood still pumping madly in the body. His manner of writing is elegant and never academic; he "sees" the whole tempestuous era and the man with a refined eye - this author has vision. My one minute complaint is that the author is overly harsh, in my opinion, about the "treason" of Roger Mortimer - honestly, considering the bizarre treatment that Queen Isabella, from the age of 12 onward, suffered from her husband and what the country itself had to endure with a man who clearly preferred to be doing anything but ruling, guiding, shepherding his country and people, as the anointed king, I wonder that historians haven't recognized that the greatest treason was Edward II against his own heritage, people and government. I was particularly horrifed to read of the brutal betrayal and execution of Llewelyn; perhaps the single act that drove Roger Mortimer to break with Edward II?

As for the likelihood that Edward II survived I would agree with the author's hypothesis, that in order to preserve his own life and that of the Queen, as Edward III came to age, it was better to keep Edward II alive, somewhere, as a hedge against retribution. Had Mortimer died in the Tower, or in exile, and never deposed Edward II one has to wonder if Edward III would have ever had the reign he had: a young man with his whole life in front of him. Had Edward II stayed on the throne and if he lived at least as long as his father, Edward I, then "our" Edward III would have been middle aged, at best, when he ascended the crown. Or would he have been an embittered heir, not married to Philippa of Hainault, embarassed by his father's misgovernment,a son driven to work against his own father, as did Richard I with his father, Henry II?

Perhaps Mortimer acted out of self-preservation but he also created an example of what it takes to be an efficient and resolute king - the tragedy of Roger Mortimer is that he wasn't - directly - of the blood royal; he certainly had everything else it would have taken to be an incredibly competent, conscientious and dutiful king.

By the way, the heirs of Roger Mortimer, who was the first Earl of March, would in 7 generations, barely a 130 years later, become king, and in name - by also deposing an anointed king, and by conquest, and finally having that same king (Henry VI) put to death to maintain the throne - that king was Edward IV. Mortimer's almost bloodless coup, in contrast to his future heir's conquest of the throne, is a study in stunning strategic vision.

The author has my highest respect - I can't imagine a finer example of what biography is meant to achieve; it is in another league altogether from the "royal" biographers like Weir. I can only hope that someday Ian Mortimer will undertake to write about another mishandled subject of history: Richard III, in many ways Richard parallels his Mortimer forebear, a masterful coup with minimum blood and revenge and a likely "murder" he also did not commit but will probably never be able to shake from his reputation either.