Unruly: The Number One Bestseller ‘Horrible Histories for grownups’ The Times

Product Information

In 2023, we flatter ourselves that we no longer put foes’ eyes out with swords or die of bubonic plague, and that the NHS, universal suffrage, widespread literacy, CBT, social media and increased life expectancy make us different from the toxic wingnuts who predominate in Mitchell’s book. Unruly is worth reading, not just for its exemplary gag to fact ratio, but to disabuse us of such delusions.

His narrative begins, boldly, with a king who didn’t exist. “Gandalf is fictional,” Mitchell writes. “Arthur is a lie.” And yet lies, myths and medieval PR makeovers are what make this story compelling: England created itself from its own myths, while simultaneously satirically debunking them. To that end, Mitchell quotes Dennis, a character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who skewers the allure of Camelot: “Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.” How this happened, who it happened to and why it matters in modern Britain are all questions David answers with brilliance, wit and the full erudition of a man who once studied history – and won’t let it off the hook for the mess it’s made. CLEVER, AMUSING, GLORIOUSLY BIZARRE AND RAZOR SHARP. MITCHELL – A FUNNY MAN AND A SKILLED HISTORIAN – TELLS STORIES THAT ARE INTERESTING AND FUN. HERE IS HORRIBLE HISTORIES FOR GROWNUPS’ GERARD DEGROOT, THE TIMES

Retailers:

Kingship, despite the crown, robes, processions, coaches, trumpets and anthems, has often been an undignified activity – all the more so because it’s supposed to be dignified. Throughout the middle ages, our rulers supposedly had the endorsement of God, which made their failures all the more humiliating. King Alfred, the first king to lay claim to ruling the English as a people and the only English king to have been issued with the epithet “Great”, nevertheless spent a large part of his early reign hiding from the Vikings in a bog – by which I mean a marsh. The intensity of intra-familial hatred in many periods of royal history makes the William and Harry rift look like a tersely raised eyebrow over a Boxing Day game of Trivial Pursuit.’ Photograph: FD/Francis Dias/Newspix International Perhaps the most undignified English king, though, was John. The extent of his indignity was a surprise to me when I was researching my new book about the kings and queens of England, because posterity has focused so much on how bad he was – bad as in dastardly. And he was dastardly – dishonest and brutal. During the reign of his predecessor, his elder brother Richard the Lionheart, he tried to steal the throne by pretending Richard was dead. Once Richard had genuinely died, he murdered the only rival claimant, his nephew Arthur, possibly with his bare hands, which feels like unnecessary attention to detail.

I can’t recommend this book enough. Very funny and interesting, it is above all a proper work of history’ CHARLIE HIGSON CLEVER, FUNNY, MAKES YOU THINK QUITE DIFFERENTLY ABOUT HISTORY’ DAN SNOW, HISTORIAN AND BROADCASTER A later ruler, King Stephen, owed his throne to the time he spent quivering in a bog – and in this case I mean a privy. Had he, as an ambitious minor prince, not suffered a sudden, violent bout of food poisoning while on board a ship in Barfleur harbour in 1120, he wouldn’t have disembarked before it headed into the Channel and sank. Everyone on the ship died except for a solitary Norman butcher, and among the watery dead was the heir to the throne. So, when King Henry I died 15 years later, Stephen’s path to kingship had been cleared by diarrhoea. He hurried to Westminster and got himself crowned, then had one of the most unsuccessful reigns in English history, entirely dominated by a savage civil war. The divine right of kings, heraldry, primogeniture and porphyrogeniture (the hilarious rule of succession whereby the son born to a king in office has first dibs on the throne over older siblings born before daddy took office) are, to Mitchell, really devices to retrospectively justify power grabs by inbred sociopaths or their mums. Perhaps this is how history should be done: not by patient scholars, nor by the telegenic likes of Olusoga or Worsley but by free-swearing actor-comediansMitchell’s swearing conceals his serious point, namely: “Having kings is an awful system.” Monarchy lends itself not to capable and professional rulers like Henry I, but rather to chancers and scumbags like Stephen and Matilda who caused misery to their subjects in ways that make later virtuosos Johnson and Truss seem like rank amateurs.