The New Murrey and Blue blog

Oh dear, Gloucestershire Live has been very sloppy. In this article about Dukes of Gloucester, Richard of Gloucester did away with George of Clarence! Then we get “When Henry IV dies, his brother Richard becomes protector and puts the two princes in safekeeping in the Tower of London. And they are never seen again.” If Richard III was Henry IV’s brother, I’ll eat my hat! And if Richard did away with his nephews, I’ll eat my socks too!

And what the heck has Thomas of Woodstock (the first Duke of Gloucester) being found a traitor got to do with his having five children? Did they lead him astray? Then Thomas died while awaiting trial? That’s one way of putting it. His demise in Calais was suspect to say the least. I’m surprised Richard III didn’t leap back in time and manage to do that as well. Instead it was probably the order of Richard II. Or someone responding to an anguished “turbulent uncle” muttering.

And how did Henry IV’s spine produce Humphrey of Gloucester? Was it a miracle along the lines of Adam’s rib? As for said Humphrey’s children being born to his mistress, Eleanor Cobham, when he was already married, meaning they couldn’t inherit….hmm, tell that to Humphrey’s grandfather, John of Gaunt. The names Beaufort and Henry VII spring to mind. And Eleanor Cobham was tried and convicted for necromancy, which can’t have helped.

The remaining dukes are out of our time period, so to speak. Thank heavens, some might say, because looking at the preceding list of errors and typos, I want to shriek “For pity’s sake GET IT RIGHT!!!!!”

And finally, the bad grammar. “There’s only ever be 6 Dukes of Gloucester…”? Ye gods. I suppose I should be thankful there weren’t six Duke of Gloucesters. Bah!