"As opposed to one of those 'I really like you' murders?" Ian Mortimer on Roger Mortimer

I’ve just finished Ian Mortimer’s excellent biography of an important man in English history – the first man ever to depose an English monarch, who ruled as king in all but name for three years, and wound up hung and drawn for his trouble. Yet very little is known about him and this is his first biography. The man in question is Roger Mortimer, First Earl of March, who with his lover Isabella, the Queen, overthrew Edward II, before having him killed, as is well-known, with a red-hot poker (or spit) up his anus.

The Greatest Traitor is engrossing and readable, making medieval British history fresh and vital. And though Ian (I’m going on a first name basis for clarity) provides clear narrative where history may not, he is always very clear, either in the body of the book or in the notes where he is using conjecture and on what the conjecture is based. Roger, though the most powerful man of his time, has left only scant evidence behind of his motivations. Ian has given us a clear, exciting and plausible life of Roger, making him a more rounded character than left to us by previous historians and playwrights. 

The biggest revelation of the book, and the most controversial, is his argument that Edward II did not die with the poker, but that Roger faked his death and funeral, and kept the king alive for political and personal reasons. After Roger was hung, Edward II escaped or was released and spent years as a hermit in Ireland and Europe. This is not the contention of a conspiracy theorist on the Internet but a theory arrived at with research based on documentary evidence and both the evidence and the argument are presented at length. It’s still a controversial theory, and arguments still continue, but such is often the nature of history.

Edward II may or may not have been gay or bisexual. He had four children with his wife and one illegitimate child so he was not averse to the ladies. But famously, he had ‘Favourites’. The first was Piers Gaveston, and the second Hugh Despenser. He would lavish land and power on both these men to the point of gross corruption. With Piers Gaveston, though it is impossible to say whether the men became lovers, they certainly loved each other. On one occasion, returning to England, Edward rushed passed Isabella at the dock to embrace and shower Gaveston with kisses. Hugh Despenser in his turn enjoyed all the favours that Gaveston had.

Both of Edward’s favourites exploited their relationship with the king, lording over the peers of England, stealing land and money and having enemies killed, often illegally. Predictably this did not go down well, and both men were forced into exile at various times and eventually both were killed. It was the war against Despenser led by Roger which resulted in the king’s forced abdication, and the ascension of his son Edward III, under the control of his mother and her lover Roger. Edward II’s death by poker is often portrayed as a punishment for his homosexuality.

But to be fair, Edward II could have buggered just about anyone he liked, if he had been a good or even a strong king, but he was not. His personal relationships led to massive corruption of his government, disrupted the social order of the country, and as a military leader, he only won one international campaign and lost control of lands in Ireland, Scotland and in France. He was incompetent, weak, dishonest and petty. Edward II could have been James Bond in the sack, but unless he could run the country well, and not run it into the ground financially and militarily, or at least not antagonise or alienate all the powerful men in the country, he was not going to last long as king.

Nor does the poker story, if indeed it ever happened, necessarily mean that he was being punished for being homosexual. Sticking a horn into a man’s anus and ramming a red hot poker through it and into his guts is a good way to kill someone without leaving any visible marks, always a good idea when indulging in murder – especially of the Lord’s Annointed.

I have never been a fan of Hate Crime Legislation, the concept that beating or killing or otherwise harming someone because of their sexuality should be different under the law to doing the same for any other reason. I understand why it came about. Homosexuals have long been a furtive, demonised and victimised part of Western Society. In England for many years, a murderer could plead the infamous ‘Guardman’s Defence’ i.e. the man made a homosexual pass at me which is why I killed him, and this would actually work! Still today, homosexuals are portrayed in certain circles as sinister sexual predators. So as recognition of the long years that homosexuals were second-class citizens unable to get a fair shake in a courtroom, legislators have introduced hate crime legislation. There was a simpler way to ensure homosexuals, or any other human being, is treated fairly by the law. That was to apply the law equally to all, in the spirit, and to the letter, in which it was intended. We don’t always have to legislate or create something new to correct wrongs – we can just do the right thing.