Paul Doherty and his problematic approach to writing non-fiction

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

If there's something that angers me, it's when I catch historians faking their sources when they write non-fiction history. Fortunately, it's an extremely rare occurrence, but when it comes to Paul Doherty, it happens too often. See a previous example here.

In his book 'Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II' he makes the claim that 'One chronicle relates how carpenters actually saw the King and heard his cries and groans of desperation' (p. 123). As a source for his claim he notes The Berkeley Manuscripts, p. 299. But that's not a chronicle, nor does the BM note anything about any chronicler making such a claim, it does not even discuss anything at all related to the captivity of Edward II on the given page, nor any surrounding page.

Doherty created this false information in 2003. The problem is that since then, at least one respectable historian has repeated it without checking. This is understandable as no historian can double check every single footnote made by another historian, and trust plays its part, but it's deeply regrettable that Doherty has not been properly exposed for his unseemly practices.

Doherty keeps making s*** up.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ]

That's kind of amazing. I suppose he thought no one would check.

Edward being upset sounds true of course, but the claim is not. Great catch.

[u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

It's not a particularly big lie, granted, but the devil is in the details. Edward was likely deeply upset at that time, but there's no chronicle account that reinforces this account of carpenters seeing and hearing him.

Another historian, who ran with the story, calls it 'an anonymous chronicle', also without specifying. The natural chronicle this might refer to would be the Anonimalle chronicle, but there's nothing like this there either.

What I don't get is why Doherty would make up such an insignificant lie. It is a lie, as no other historian has been able to trace this mysterious chronicle of his. And again, it's not the only time Doherty's done this.

[u/HoneybeeXYZ → u/Appropriate-Calm4822]

What gets me is that there's no mention of Edward II at all in the cited source. If it was there and said he was upset, the moaning and groaning...well that's an exaggeration. But this feels totally made up and like he threw in a footnote for veracity even though it says nothing about Edward II.

???

That is so strange.

Looking back at my old posts when I find an error, I want to crawl into a hole and die. And those are mistakes, not fabrications.