The New Murrey and Blue blog

Well, if you follow this link—https://maxmymoney.org/the-difference-between-insane-and-genius-10-bad-guys-who-werent-actually-bad-but-misunderstood/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Difference%20Between%20Insane%20And%20Genius%E2%80%9D%2010%20%E2%80%98Bad,Richard%20III%3A%20Victim%20of%20Propaganda%20…%20More%20items *— you have to scroll down to Number 8 to read this: “….Richard III, the much-maligned figure in Tudor history, may have been unfairly demonized, according to one historian. The Tudors’ portrayal of Richard III was influenced by their political agendas and physical deformity, making it difficult to discern whether he was a villain or a victim of propaganda….”

ACCORDING TO ONE HISTORIAN? Only one? That’s a slur in itself. There have been numerous historians speaking up for Richard. This particular historian isn’t named (that I can see). Even more nitwit historians have denigrated him, of course, but they’re mostly Tudorites. Nitwits indeed, because the Tudors were the source of all the malignity.

Apart from that, the final sentence of the extract is a hoot, reading that the Tudors had the physical deformity. Well, that is indeed a dose of their own medicine! Oh, that naughty little Yorkist comma. 😄

 * I’m so sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but the original link took you to the wrong part of a site. I have just tested the original link, how included above, and it takes you to the article about which I’ve written today.