The New Murrey and Blue blog

 

Two articles have come to my attention. They are both by The Conversation editor Jo Adetunji and both are set upon regurgitating old evidence written by the enemies of Richard III. The first (illustrated above), written July 27, 2021, is here. Hmmm. This is an extract:-

“….But I’ve discovered that the names More gives for the men who are alleged to have killed the princes (Forest and Dighton) are not imaginary, but real people….”

Adetunji discovered the direct link? Oh, come on! It’s all old hat that’s been around for centuries and was first peddled by the sainted More, who probably got his halo from Beelzebub. And Beelzebub would have got it after it had been given a buff up by Morton, who was himself the greatest liar since Ananais. The modern authors who’ve claimed to have made this “new” discovery for themselves are all clamouring for sales and prating from their rear ends.

There is a little back-pedalling:-

“….And while my latest evidence does not prove definitively that Richard III murdered his nephews, it is certainly clear proof that More wrote his history when he was in direct contact with the men who were closely associated with this most notorious of crimes….”

Richard wasn’t definitively proven guilty? Oh dear. Calamity. Well, he happened to be innocent, and the sainted Sir Thomas More was lying in his holy teeth after paying slavish attention to Morton. No more need be said. If anyone repeated rumours, More did! He got his information from a man who loathed Richard III, and who grovelled before Henry Tudor and his sanctimonious troll of a mother, Margaret Beaufort. Morton could indeed be relied upon….to lie about Richard III! He’d been hard-wired! And yet the author of this silly article clearly regards More as gospel when all he’d done repeat on Morton’s venomous hogwash.

I couldn’t bear to read any more of the first article, so I thought I’d try another, this time written January 7, 2022. Same author, same big mistake on my part because it all went down the same slippery slope. For instance:-

“….Richard did have a ruthless streak and his late wife was his [sic] also his cousin. ….”

This came immediately after the writer had cleared Richard of murdering his queen in order to marry his niece (an incestuous notion of which the writer also cleared him). So please tell me why this makes Richard ruthless? And what the heck does marrying his cousin have to do with it? They had dispensation, they were most probably in love, so they were married! Period.

Then I came to the following nonsense:-

“….While subject to much gossip, Richard was not beyond using rumours and fabrication to his own advantage. He had his nephews declared illegitimate on the grounds that their father, Edward IV, was already married to another women, Dame Eleanor Butler. This made his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville bigamy and therefore illegal. Illegitimacy meant their two sons could not inherit the crown. This was most likely a fabrication but those living in England during his reign seem to have at least gone along with this story….”

Perhaps they went along with it because it was true? Oh, but perish that thought, of course. I double-checked how long ago this article had been written, and found it was only January 2022. By then there had been plenty of evidence that Edward IV’s so-called marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been bigamous. Perhaps the author should read John Ashdown-Hill on the subject. He at least knew what he was talking about, and he certainly did his research and made important discoveries for himself! (And they didn’t involve More’s fiction!)

But it goes from bad to worse, because this article too goes on about “The Gospel According to More” (my invented title):-

“….One of the first detailed accounts linking the deaths of the princes to Richard was written by Sir Thomas More, who would go on to become Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor. In it More cites two men, Miles Forest and John Dighton, as the murderers who he states were recruited by a servant of Richard III….”

Then:-

“….However, a new archival discovery found Thomas More had contact with two of Miles Forest’s sons – one of whom was working for Cardinal Wolsey and the other in Henry VIII’s chamber. It is assumed that More would have had contact with them when writing about Richard III. While this is not conclusive proof of Richard’s culpability it is perhaps as good as we can expect….”

Oh, GROAN…..! It’s that Miles-Forest’s-sons rubbish again. New the story ain’t!

Nor is it true or as good as we can expect, because it’s all super-adhesive fakery, at which the Tudors excelled when it came to attaching their usurping backsides to the throne.

Coldridge comes in for a little dissing as well. “….Edward [V] apparently lived out his days in the south-west under the name John Evans. This is not impossible, though it is highly unlikely….”

Why, may I ask? Why is this highly unlikely, yet More’s spreading of Tudor lies and propaganda is seemingly highly likely? The Conversation’s editor is very selective, methinks.

There is one little mystery in this second article, because it speaks of Richard being “most likely” buried in Leicester. Umm….upon which desert island had the author been marooned, may I ask? In September 2012 Richard was found at Greyfriars (where he’d been buried since 1485!) and then he was reinterred at Leicester Cathedral on 26 March 2015. So the writer should surely have caught some little hint of it by 2022!

I know, I know, I hide my feelings well. I’m cool, calm and collected in the face of adversity. I also tell porkies, because I’m off now to stick a few rusty but exceedingly therapeutic pins in Tudor effigies. After that I’ll feel much, much better! 😄