While I enjoyed reading "Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings". I didn't learn any new information. The book is divided into sections for each king. Her assessment of whether each king is a usurper covers a page or two. I don't agree with her assessment of one king not being a usurper. To me, he is as guilty as the rest of them, taking a throne that he was not entitled to. In Richard III's case, any evidence that might have proved Edward IV was illegitimate or a bigamist would have been destroyed by Henry VII.

Review of Usurpers

In her book, Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings, Michele Morrical examines six kings (and queens) who commandeered the British Monarchy for their own rule. Did they assume the throne illegally or illegitimately? Morrical presents interesting and convincing evidence as she scrutinizes the circumstances by which each monarch seized power and shows through English Law and royal precedent whether their claim to authority had merit. Spoiler alert: In most cases, the answer was “No.”

Usurpers is a readable history of some of the most tumultuous times in the British Medieval Monarchy. Each royal claim is examined sufficiently but concisely, covering several years in a succinct manner. The narrative is full of colorful characters who are not averse to use warfare to achieve their ends, legitimate or otherwise. The reader will see that English History may be bloody but is never boring. The only drawback of Usurpers is, that near the end, events that have already been established, are repeated. This is confusing and unnecessary. All in all, Usurpers is accessible, enlightening, and informative. Those who are interested in the British Medieval Monarchy may find it helpful.


I was given a free copy by the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

I really enjoyed this book. The research was great. It was built upon facts without sacrificing readability. The conclusions reached on whether the subject was an usurper or not facilitated thought on the readers part. This was an enjoyable aspect of the read.

The six kings featured; William the Conqueror, King Stephen, King Henry IV, King Edward IV, King Richard III and King Henry VII are often the topic of debate as to whether they usurped the throne or not.  Morrical aims to review the claim of each to the throne, how they became king and answer whether they usurped it according to the definition of 'usurp'.


I enjoyed the first three, especially Stephen as I find Empress Matilda very interesting.
The last three had some repetition due to the crossover and all three being part of the Wars of the Roses. As that's a favourite era for me I didn't learn anything new but for a beginner it is good at giving some background information, I just wish there wasn't so much repetition.

There was also quite alot of editing errors which I hope were spotted before publication.

Overall this is a good start for anyone wishing to learn about the six Kings and get some background on the Wars of the Roses.

“The hardest thing of all about being a medieval king was holding onto the crown. England set itself up for hundreds of years of challenges to the throne by having no formal or legal statutes defining the line of succession. This opened the door to a whole string of challengers to the throne, including a number who ultimately succeeded and were thus labeled as usurpers. The goal of this book has been to reevaluate the stories of six medieval kings who have been traditionally labeled as usurpers and then make a judgment as to whether or not they were deserving of that title.”

This book describes the rise to power of William the Conqueror, King Stephen, King Henry IV, King Edward IV, King Richard III and King Henry VII. It addresses their claims to the throne, their efforts to achieve it and the lengths they went to to hold off challenges. It was interesting, but the book was written in an almost conversational manner. I am not a big reader of English history, but even I have read some of the books cited in the bibliography, so this book obviously isn’t breaking any new ground with a re-evaluation of primary sources. There were some editing errors and occasionally it felt like steps were skipped. Especially in the last half of the book, there was quite a bit of redundancy, the same events were described multiple times. The book was a little like a series of essays or lectures that should have been melded together better.

Nevertheless, I did stick with the book and I did learn things, but that is because I am not a history buff. I was entertained enough to round up my 3.5 star rating. Anyone with more of a background in English history than I have should probably skip this book.

I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.

A very detailed and thoughtful account of the different monarchs and rulers of the medieval era. I love this time in history, so I’m an avid reader of anything regarding this period. I found this a very informative and easy read, and would recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about this period.

This book was a fascinating look at the "usurper" kings of English history and the steps they took to legitimatize their reigns after the overthrow of their predecessors. I also liked that it looked at royal women such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Margaret of Anjou who took royal power for themselves, even if they didn't rule in their own name

In this book Morrical considers whether six of the medieval monarchs could be considered as usurpers both in terms of the historical contemporary context and with our distanced view. It's a really strong book as it considers the first three situations - William I, Stephen and Henry IV. However as the last three kings were all contemporaneous the book begins to break down as it repeats facts. Read separately these accounts would be fine but read consecutively I started to become annoyed. The book feels like a series of excellent essays but needed edited to create a more effective narrative as a book.

Short version: Yes they're all usurpers and you don't need to read this book to know that.

Long version:

I really struggled for a bit with how to rate this one. The title is a bit misleading if you go into it thinking there will be new ideas or documents or things of that nature. However, if you take it at face value that this is simply a new book on a set of kings who were absolutely usurpers, then the title fits. Every single one of the kings discussed in the book took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, I appreciated another look at the people and periods, because those eras of history are most certainly my jam, but there is nothing new actually added to the conversation.

The author looks at six kings: William the Bastard, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Anyone with knowledge of those periods can without a doubt say that yes, everyone single one of these men took a crown that was not theirs.

1. William took the crown from Harold II (Harold Godwinson), who had been chosen by the Witan upon the death of Edward the Confessor. Sorry, not sorry William; forcing people to swear oaths under duress makes them not binding, you big jerk.

2. Stephen of Blois took the crown from his cousin Empress Matilda, whose father Henry I had twice made his nobility swear to support her claim after the death of his only legitimate heir William Adelin aboard the White Ship - or rather, in the water when the White Ship sank and though he had initially survived, he attempted to rescue his half sister. His small boat was swamped and he drowned along with everyone else, save one cook.

3. Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, took the crown from his cousin Richard II when Richard II was deposed.

4. Edward IV took the crown from Henry VI, lost it to him, then took it back again and had Henry VI murdered in order to retain it for good. Major dick move, but not unsurprising for the times. Henry VI is the king I have always felt the most terribly for, having never done anything to warrant his murder.

5. Richard III, don't even get me started on this guy. He imprisoned his nephews, including the RIGHTFUL king, Edward V, and likely had them killed. Margaret Beaufort wasn't behind their deaths, fuck off with that nonsense.

6. Henry Tudor's army faced Richard III's and we all know how that turned out. Richard had it coming, but even after his death on the battlefield, Henry did not have a strong claim. The actual next in line who should have been crowned was Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. You know, the kid who had been imprisoned because his claim was stronger, who was eventually executed along with Lambert Simnel on Henry's orders. Warwick was the son of George, Duke of Clarence - brother of Edward IV and Richard III who was murdered, on his brothers' orders for plotting treason against Edward.

As you can see, there is a TON of history here, and a lot of it overlapping in the last three chapters of later years (Edward, Richard, Henry) because of how entwined their stories are. Yet the author never really digs too deeply in and the text did become repetitive at times because of how connected they were. But there is also no new insight or analysis either. It's a straight-forward history, but lacking depth.

For a book that was aiming in part to look at what chroniclers of the time said about each of these new kings seizing a throne, there was actually very little from any chroniclers, if at all. I find that very curious, seeing as how those who wrote of each court would certainly have had strong opinions whether they were in favor or not. Thomas More is a prime example of the propaganda machine at work for the Tudors - though again, let's be realistic: if it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse, Richard had the boys murdered. More certainly embellished quite a bit; Richard was a product of his time, but with the murders of his nephews he went too far. Rumors spread around London very quickly once the boys were no longer seen. There is no way Richard did not hear those rumors. All he would have had to do is produce the children in order to stop the gossip. He didn't, because he couldn't.

That was a tangent I realize, but true nonetheless. As for chroniclers in the previous eras, they all had opinions too, and were quite overlooked. I find this curious, and altogether odd. The men (always men) writing at the time produced much in the way of, well, chronicles. Not including passages is weird.

Overall, it is not a terrible read. It is one I think I would suggest to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the periods and is looking for a starting point. Especially during the Wars of the Roses, things get quite complicated so who knows, the repetition of material might help sort things out. But for those like me who already have a firm background, this is a pass.

I was so very excited to read this book! I love anything with medieval history, and I was excited to get a different look into the view of these kings. Overall, I think there were some great points made, but there was nothing in this book that really stood out as new.

As with all kings, especially new ones, there are stories that can crop up, especially if it makes one look bad. Richard III is one of the ones that has gotten a bad rap in history - with the accusations that he murdered his nephews in the Tower. There is no concrete evidence that he did, and there is no concrete evidence that he didn't.

There are some redeeming qualities in the book. I enjoyed reading about Matilda - the almost queen of England, She lost her crown because she was a woman - and her cousin managed to twist the narrative toward his own well-being - although it did not end well for him. As well as another powerhouse, Eleanor of Aquitaine - a woman who managed to live longer than most, fomented a rebellion against her own husband, a powerhouse in her own right, and someone who knew how to hold and wield power.
Of course, you have to always enjoy reading about Edward III. He has long been one of my favorite monarchs, not only because of the crazy aspects of his father - but because of the way that he managed to return power to where it should be, and how he treated his mother and her lover.

There is always something fun when it comes to royalty, and while this book doesn't really give you anything new, it is still a fun and great read.

It was tough being a king in medieval England, and this book drives it home, relating the stories of six kings who won their thrones in less than savory ways.

It was an informative, straightforward read that I quite enjoyed. The author covers six kings from William the Conqueror to Henry VII in brief chapters, touching upon the lead-up to their reign, the taking of the throne, and what they did with their power afterward. The various political machinations were laid out in a clear and easy to follow fashion, which is impressive considering the tangle that is the War of the Roses.

However, I did not feel that the author dug deep with much new insight. Also, sections of the last three chapters were sometimes repetitive due to the intertwining nature of those kings' histories.

Overall, this is an excellent read for those who are new to English royal history.

I want to thank Netgalley and the author for gifting me the ebook. As I have stated before in my other reviews I found this book fascinating! Very well research and the author did a great job. Highly recommend!

An accessible account of the Kings of England who took the throne from another and of their lasting ill repute.

With a title as such, it’d be necessary to define what a ‘usurper’ really is, and the author helps us with it: to usurp means ‘to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right’. The author doesn't really care much if the act of usurpation is justified morally; for example, if the current king is bad at his job or ill-fitted for the office while there is someone else better prepared for it. The author picks William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor to put their reputation to the test. First is William the Conqueror: after Edward the Confessor’s death in 1066, with no successor mentioned (it wasn’t in his power to do so), the noblemen’s council known as Witan had to pick someone and they did so with King Harold Godwin. It was customary and within the law for the reigning king to make public his preference toward a candidate to succeed him, but the decision at the end of the day was the Witan’s. William — a Norman foreigner — did not like that decision and invaded England. So, his fame is not changed here. Next is King Stephen: Like William, he said that king Henry chose him as his successor on his deathbed. England in this time period had no strict laws for succession. It was mostly the king’s choice if there were no direct blood heirs; however, the people were not forced to follow the king’s command. King Henry I chose his daughter Matilda as his heir, for he had no male one. As surprising as it was, there was no law against a woman ruling the country, and Henry made his barons swear oaths of fealty, including Matilda’s cousin Stephen. After Henry’s death, Stephen saw a chance to steal the crown from her cousin, but he had no legal claim to the throne, and he wasn’t even close to Henry I’s bloodline. Next is Henry IV: while Henry did gather a sizable army, he did not resort to violence against his cousin, King Richard II. He used his army as a show of force and even had the acquiescence of Richard’s regent, Edmund Langley, when Henry entered London. Henry used lawyers wherever possible and reverted the order of succession and to make himself the next in line to the throne. Does that fit into the usurper’s definition? No, but he did upset the status quo and because of that he is often seen, wrongly, as a usurper. Quite the contrary perspective is that of King Edward IV who is not always seen as such, he most definitely was a usurper. Even when he was supported by the people, even when he had more royal blood than Henry VI, he used force and no legal means. He is one example of a man breaking the law for what was perceived as common good. One of the most popular historical villains is Richard III who is not given a chance of redemption in this book’s assessment of his crimes: While being loyal to his brother King Edward IV in life, Richard supported the rumor that Edward’s sons — and heirs to the throne — were illegitimate and didn’t do a thing to find evidence of that fact, and took the throne for himself on that basis. While Richard was enthroned by parliament legally, there was never an investigation of Eleanor Butler’s supposed marriage to King Edward IV, which would make his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville null. Richard pressed for his coronation and suspiciously did away with Edward’s sons, for they represented a threat. And since murder was illegal even at that time, the murder of the boys made a criminal out of Richard, and an outright usurper as well. Regarding Henry VII the matter is a bit more complicated as stated by the author: “If the Yorkist had usurped the crown from the Lancastrians, is it considered usurpation for the Lancastrians to take it back? Was Henry Tudor even the rightful heir of Lancaster?” Even though, Richard III was hated by his people, was that an excuse for usurpation? The author concludes: “Henry Tudor had no legal precedence over the crown, and he came to power through violence, therefore he is a usurper”.

With the sole purpose of labeling each king with the “usurper” tag and leaving the moral/ethical justifications to the side, the book reads this book weirdly reads — in the most part — as a lawyer defending or accusing someone else. Some historical background is repeated several times when it was not necessary to mention it again. However, that aspect is what will make this book very accessible and easy to follow to people reading about this topic for the first time. ~

This was a great book on Medieval kings. I would highly recommend this to anyone else who is fascinated by the medieval world as I am and like to read about it for pure entertainment.

A fun look at medieval English history, through the stories of William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor, and other fascinating figures -- many of them, purported "usurpers" who became kings by seizing the throne for themselves. What is especially good about this work is how it engages with the primary source material -- understanding that the "chronicles" of that era were just as much works of contemporary political propaganda as historical record, and acknowledging that our perceptions of these figures is highly biased by that context. This is an interesting and thoughtful read about a fascinating and exciting time in English history and is sure to be enjoyed by lovers of history.

Overall, a great narrative overview of some key moments in British monarchic history. Easy-to-read and informative, with immaculate detail and explanation throughout. The "usurper" question could have been explored more in-depth and integrated more effectively into the overall structure, but that's a minor complaint. An enjoyable read for a History buff like me.

A fascinating look at the early years of English rule and the politics behind the hostile takeovers of the throne. The stories surrounding each of the events were intriguing and really kept my interest.

Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest review.

I've always enjoyed reading English history, so I was already a bit familiar with many of the featured medieval kings. Still, I did manage to learn a new thing or two. I liked how this was ordered chronologically, although as the kings during the War of the Roses overlapped each other, it tended to get a bit repetitive in their part and I found myself skimming some of it. I really liked how unlike a few biographies that center around monarchs, this one did not shy away from talking about the powerful women involved. Overall, aside from a few typos here and there, I think this is a solid, well researched book for anyone eager to learn more about British history.

In medieval Europe, to be considered a strong king, you must keep a firm grasp on your crown, or those who see you as weak will take advantage. These men were known as usurpers throughout history who steal the throne through combat or by illegal means. Some of the most well-known kings in English history have been categorized as usurpers, but is this a fair assessment of their mark in history, or is it a case of propaganda changing their legacy? In her debut nonfiction book, “Usurpers, a New Look at Medieval Kings,” Michele Morrical explores the lives of six English kings who bear that title to see if it makes sense with the facts of how they came into power.

I want to thank Net Galley and Pen and Sword Books for sending me a copy of this book. When I heard this book was published, I wanted to see how Morrical described a usurper and which king she considered usurpers. I have never heard of a book that focused solely on those who stole thrones in England, so I was excited to see how well it read.

Morrical breaks her book into six sections, with each part focusing on one specific king and his rise to power. She focuses on William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII as examples of rulers in English history known to be usurpers. Morrical writes biography vignettes to give her readers an understanding of how they came to power and who they had to remove from the throne to become the next monarch. In some cases, it meant starting a new dynasty, and in others, it was just a continuation of the family’s lineage, but it was a different branch of the family tree. The biographies tend to get repetitive, especially with the sections dedicated to the Wars of the Roses. If you are new to these kings and the events of their lifetimes, the repetitive nature will help you understand how everything is connected.

I think Morrical can improve if she writes another nonfiction book by using quotes from primary sources and other historians to strengthen her arguments. I wish she had included discussions from chronicles or other primary sources from around the times that these men became rulers to see the consensus of the time towards the new king. It would have added an extra layer to the stories, and readers could see how our definition of a usurper king would have compared or contrasted to the views of the past. I would have also liked Morrical to have discussed whether being a usurper king had a positive or negative connotation. Many kings on this list were considered game-changers when ruling England and transformed how England was viewed in the grander scheme of European politics.

I think for her first book, Morrical does a decent job of presenting her viewpoints about certain kings and presenting the facts about their lives. One can tell that Morrical is passionate about usurpers and understanding why they took the English throne from their predecessors. Overall, I think it is not bad for a book that combines the lives of six kings of England into one text. If you want a good introductory book into the lives of usurper kings, you should give “Usurpers, a New Look at Medieval Kings” by Michele Morrical a try.

Whilst I appreciate that this promises a rather unique look at the reigns of some notable kings and whether they were worthy of the title "usurper" that had been applied to them, this really did not ignite any spark.

If you are going to use the words "a new look" in the title, then there should be something new that has not been repeated elsewhere. If I have picked up your tome with the title "usurpers" in it - it means that I have read the usual tomes, have a working background knowledge, and don't need the details of each kings' reign ..... in detail, including a history of events of the previous rulers.

If you plan to provide an analysis of the reign of kings considered as usurpers, then more than a one to two page assessment at the end of what I considered to be an information dump, is required. What I am after is a unique, unbiased, assessment of why each deserved or did not deserve the title of usurper - not just a throw-away "because he snuffed out the previous ruler" or "because of his father's political ambitions" or "because his stole it {the crown} away". The assessment, whatever the author's opinion is, needs to be weighted against the reign, the actions, and viewed in the context of the period in order to be able to formulate a cohesive analysis. Sure provide some background - but - after I finished and looked at the sources provided and noted that I had read them all - sometimes less is more - a short sharp summary of events. I know you've done the research - what I want to see is how you've applied it the the premise - did the book meet the brief. Well ... briefly.

I would put this in the category of more popularist history - certainly, from the tone of the narrative, the language, it is not an academic text - I was left wondering who the intended audience was. Even if the reader had read nothing about the history of England from the time of Alfred to Henry VIII, I would be hesitant is suggesting this as an initial text. I actually did not enjoy reading this at all.


My opinion is based upon many, many years of reading and studying history.