The New Murrey and Blue blog

You have been warned before you visit https://shorturl.at/urmrt. Oh deary me, I’m not going to read nine of these unpolished gems, because reading number 7 was quite enough dross for one day, thank you very much. I haven’t watched the video attached to the number 7 entry, because one browser wouldn’t have anything to do with it, and the other deluged me with ads, so I left well alone and resorted to McAfee to be rid of whatever I’d acquired.

Number 7 is the unfortunate Richard III, who (once again! 😠) is kicked around thanks to the idiot author of the above link, who seems to believe all the old rubbish/lies churned out by Tudor – Shakespeare – Thomas More – Morton – modern Tudor-obsessed historians – et al.

He was, it seems, a usurping hunchback, a ruthless tyrant, and a child-murderer who was dumped in an unmarked grave, blah, blah. Then “….Slowly but surely, key members of his court defected to his rival, Henry Tudor. He was finally defeated in battle after being abandoned by most of his own men….” Eh????

This writer has really gone to town with the nonsense. Surprisingly she missed the one about murdering his own brother George, Duke of Clarence, and (as a friend has pointed out) didn’t mention how he personally killed the wretched Henry VI. Nor does the author recall the one about Richard poisoning his queen as well. Big slip-up there – by the author, not Richard.

And talking of slip-ups, I’m startled that they’ve used the above portrait of him….why on earth didn’t they use the one got at by the Tudors, in which Richard is transformed into a mean, yellow-faced, elderly man?

Nor is the writer’s English up to much, see here “….his [Richard’s] remains were found in a parking lot in 2012. Though they now lay in a cathedral…” They what in a cathedral? Lie, lady, lie! His remains lie in a cathedral! Or were laid. But, I suppose, if she writes of a parking lot instead of a car park, she may be American. Or at least uses US English.

Mind you, I feel I should point out that this author doesn’t even seem to be quite sure if it was Richard III or Richard II who was guilty of it all. OK, the II is probably a typo, but it’s clear she can’t be bothered to check her own work, let alone write the truth.

Well, I suppose she knows it’s all guff, so why bother to be sure if it’s flawless guff?

One of my friends managed to sign on to the site and left the following comment:
‘The part about Richard III is almost completely wrong! He wasn’t a usurper, tyrant or hunchback. He wasn’t abandoned by most of his army either. I’ve researched him for over a decade and there is evidence he was fair, just, loyal, dutiful, courageous and merciful. And none for all the things mentioned here: this is all based on Shakespeare, which is FICTION!!
But they can’t even get that right! They mention Shakespeare, saying he called for a horse because he was desperate to get away. In fact, in the play, he was trying to find Henry Tudor to kill him and wanted a horse to get back into the thick of the battle and find him. In real life, he actually refused a horse, saying: “God forbid I yield one step. This day, I will die as king or win!”
There is also far more evidence that his nephews weren’t murdered, but survived his reign.
Please do some basic research before publishing such twaddle.’

Exactly!

by viscountessw