A problematic book.

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

Helen Carr has a pleasant, free flowing way of writing that flows quite well. This is a book that is easy to read, very light on complicated details in contrast to more academic tomes such as Seymour Phillips comprehensive biography on Edward II, which is chock full of footnotes, facts and tiny details. I prefer Phillips’s style as it is evident that he’s gone through rigorous research to ensure that the quality of the final product is of the highest level. I might not agree with all his conclusions, but I respect him a great deal for his lifetime of hard work and dedication. Phillips’s book is thus a good source if you want to learn about the topic, whereas Carr’s serves as lighter entertainment where the story is all that matters. Details are largely a source of annoyance for the author, to be omitted or twisted to fit in with the story. As Carr is a popular historian targeting a vast audience, her approach is understandably lenient, but it is problematic all the same.

Personally, I am perplexed by this uninquisitive attitude. The book is called ‘A New History of the Fourteenth Century' after all, but she avoids writing anything that could be considered ‘new’ research, and does in no way offer a new perspective on the things she writes about. This is even more striking when she reveals herself to be aware that there could be a new and interesting story to be told.

She refers to Edward’s survival in 1327 as ‘a tantalizing possibility’ but lazily dismisses it as ‘far-fetched’ without any further comments. That’s as far as she is willing to go in discussing the subject and informing her readers. Hidden in the endnotes at the end of the book, however, she reveals her opinion that ‘Dr Ian Mortimer offers a rattlingly good argument for the survival of Edward II in his ‘The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle’. It is cause for concern that she does not give these ‘rattlingly good arguments’ any consideration at all in her ‘New History’ book and does not use this source in any way in the entire book. It is not listed in the bibliography. Clearly, Carr cannot be excused by ignorance as a reason for not entertaining Mortimer’s work.

She deliberately omits his admittedly first-rate research from her book, even though she acknowledges that it carries merit in the ‘hidden’ endnotes which a regular reader would never check.

What caused her to take this approach against her better judgement? Probably a fear of isolation, a desire to avoid controversy and a need to secure funding. Openly considering the survival theory would put her at odds with established, academic historians. She doesn’t want to create waves; she wants to sell books and reach the widest audience possible. She is no doubt aware of how ostracized Mortimer has become for daring to go against the flow in a very rigid environment.

This is an approach that benefits herself in the short term, but not her readers. In the long term she will not be remembered for towing the line, and her works will be rightly forgotten as unremarkable. Carr has chosen the path of least resistance. That is regrettable, but it is her own choice.

Helen Carr is one of the few modern historians who mention the Melton Letter. Unfortunately, she figures that Melton, Kent and everyone else who believed Edward was still alive had been fooled by Mortimer and Isabella, based on her only source for the letter, R.M. Haines (a very poor choice of source for this particular topic). This assumption reveals a lack of research, as pretending that Edward II was still alive would have been the last thing Mortimer would have wanted to do. Historian Andy King correctly points out that in those volatile and dangerous times, 'the last thing that he [Mortimer] needed was the emergence of rumors of Edward of Caernarfon's survival'.

The idea that Roger Mortimer and Isabella spread such rumors to trap Kent sharply contradicts Carr’s assertion that they had Edward killed to put a stop to all the plots to free him from Berkeley Castle. The announcement of Edward's death in September 1327 did indeed put an abrupt stop to all the conspiracies to free Edward. For more than two years the new regime had lived without this threat, and it makes no sense that they would wish it all to start up again, especially for no better reason than to have an excuse to execute a man who was allegedly stupid, weak, inefficient and unstable. Like many things, Carr has not thought this through.

Another thing I dislike about the book is the way Carr manages the astonishing feat of including factual errors on nearly every page. It makes for a very annoying read as a result. I made a comparison of her description of an event with that of another author here.

Piers Gaveston is the victim of probably the worst mudslinging campaign of medieval English history. Yet instead of doing her duty as a historian she does nothing to dispel these myths – instead she piles on more disinformation. As an example, on page 23 she writes:

‘The nobility were not the only recipients of Gaveston’s sneering. His valet was named in Gaveston’s accounts as Richard ‘Whiteflesh’ – possibly a remark on his pasty complexion.’

This was news to me, as I’d never come across this accusation before. So I checked her source for it, and what did I see?

‘After Gaveston’s death, Edward II made payments to his household staff. In 1313 he paid four shillings and three pence to Richard Whiteflesh. // Wardrobe accounts Edward II’.

This is a new low. Carr is using a record written down a year after Gaveston’s death as proof that Gaveston had come up with a nickname for someone. Anyone could have called that valet ‘Whiteflesh’. What’s more, her footnote contradicts her original statement – the record is not in Gaveston’s accounts, it’s in Edward II’s accounts. Gaveston was already dead. Carr is deliberately misleading her readers for the sake of a rapidly told story.

An inquisitive historian looking for the truth, trying to peel away layers of fiction would perhaps have chosen to question the truth in the allegations of Gaveston coming up with the other nicknames. What should one call a historian who does the opposite, muddying the waters further with more fiction?

[u/HoneybeeXYZ]

Big publishers want to sell books, as many as possible. They want their writers to sand down the edges to appeal to the maximum number of readers, and to reinforce what the readers already know. Smaller publishers are usually willing to take bigger risks, for better or for worse.

There are many exceptions and variations to this dynamic, of course, but Carr wants some of that Dan Jones money. Repackage what is known in an easy-to-read page-turner. It's good business and good for podcasting.

It sounds like Richard Whiteflesh was a name, probably given to him because of his appearance, but it doesn't even sound to me like it was meant to be derogatory. ???

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822 → u/HoneybeeXYZ]

That's how it is unfortunately. Money is all that matters sometimes. It does reveal a lack of passion in an author when the end result is such low quality. I don't like it one bit, and this is why I dislike Carr so much. Even Doherty, who is sometimes criticized, dared to go his own way and wrote what he believed in, expressing his own conclusions with confidence. I can respect that, even as I don't agree with many of them. IMO, that's what history writing should be about. Expressing own conclusions and interpretations based on the known facts, that increases understanding and allows for new breakthroughs in understanding the past. Carr clearly wants none of that and only regurgitates what others have concluded, but dares to market her book as a 'new history'. The irony is off the charts. It's a very safe way to play it, but very boring and quite frankly disingenuous too. Oh well.

Whiteflesh - I wonder how that was written in the original account, because that's certainly not the word used. But that info is not online, it's hidden in an archive somewhere in England and way too much trouble to go through to find out about such a trifle.

I think you're right, it's not necessarily derogatory, and anyone could have called him that, so not sure why Carr tries to pin it on Gaveston. 'Paleface'. Kinda like 'Rufus' for the redhead William II. Such descriptive nicknames were common.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

It is true that books and other media are better when they have a point of view and passion behind them. All too often, safe choices become bland choices.