The New Murrey and Blue blog

6 responses to “That magic cooking pot of Tudor lies provides endless proof of Richard III’s guilt….honest….!”

1. 

   jay

   June 2, 2025 at 6:55 pm

   i’ll definatly give it a miss! one day these people may realize that they can no longer get away with repeating the same old nonsense . if they wish to cling to their discourse – then provide some proof that will stand scrutiny. the mssing princes project has provided evidence – borman and co are obviously runnning scared. serves them right for building their careers on a lie.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
2. 

   Beth Williams

   June 2, 2025 at 7:08 pm

   When I first read through “Daughter of Time” my only ‘other’ frame of reference was Shakespeare’s wicked uncle, which in my American ignorance/innocence assumed was satire (it was high school, I thought everything was satire), only later did I realize that people were serious about this nonsense. Much to my shock academics, like Thornton, have made a ‘career’ out of such residual fluff. To my 20thc mind baddies were people like Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, the Austrian wannabe painter, and so I wondered not about what academics, writers, scholars had ‘misunderstood’ but just what caused in them such uniform fear – as an entire discipline – to even ask questions, to investigate the claims of their (very compromised) ‘sources’ – all I can come up with is academics like Thornton (Pollard, Hicks, Starkey et al) are terrified of the long arm of Tudor vengeance, the rack, the flames, the garrott, the swarms of informers loom large in their fevered psyches. You and I may live in the 21st century but they clearly do not.

   Ole misery and bluff Hal with his putrifying leg will get them IF they don’t make nice, oh hells bells, they made a saint out of a cagey London lawyer!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
3. 

   jay

   June 2, 2025 at 10:44 pm

   well beth – we can only hope that the terrible tudors do haunt them! sadly i think their unwillingness to even consider that they might be wrong is arrogance and self interest – they have to avoid being exposed as the peddlers of lies. its not unique to richard – the academic establishment can have knee jerk reactions when long held discourse is challenged – the attempts to discredit philippa langley and her project – both personally and professionally can be seen in other spheres of research. read ian mortimer on his experience when he suggested that edward 11 might not have been murdered . similarly – the archeologist tom delahaye challenged ‘clovis theory’ and was was subjected to a barrage of almost hysterical outrage from ‘academia’ – even though he was right! similarly the (female) swedish archelolgosts who postulated the discourse of the birka warrior being female. faced intese pushback from the ‘establishment’ and were also subjected to on line abuse and threats. thank goodness we have people who are brave enough to take on the challenge of research which may disprove traditional narratives – and lets hope that one day the media will stop giving air time to the discredited theories – although i suppose as far as the media are concerned – lurid lies make for a more sensational prograamme – so they opt for tales of dastardly deeds rather than the prosaic truth that the ‘princes’ actually survived. . it will be interesting to see how they all react when the next findings from the mpp project are announed!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      Beth Williams

      June 3, 2025 at 8:25 pm

      Jay, I was with the R3 Society in the 80’s (my first Annual meeting was held in NYC, I am quite sure that I was the only non-lawyer there! Richard’s advocates are legal eagles and made me realise just how much had been ‘left on the table’ as per discussion, questions, etc. I took a break and went back to grad school in the 90’s (Art History) and experienced first hand the academic blinders and entrenched biases that made those years both a misery and fruitless, the idea of NOT pursuing a PhD shocked them (I had the Thesis all but written, ‘save a chapter’ according to my ‘first reader’ )- but the thought of staying on for another 4-5 years with literally the same small cadre of people (by the time you get to this level of minutiae your topic is so exclusive that literally only a very few can be ‘trusted’ to provide guidance) and I came from the Studio artworld where interaction, constant changing perspectives, reworking of ideas, viewpoints, was the NORM. Every grad class I had I met with frustration, the seminar papers and topics I wanted to present were limited by VERY outmoded structures, for example, a paper on Rembrandt’s portraiture required an entirely new means of discussion and data to be referenced which did not actually exist, I would have to build it for that paper, ok, fine, the topic was worth it, I narrowed it down to just the Tobias portraits, the poor instructor, a specialist on Rubens, nearly fainted. “It’s just a seminar paper!” My area was 1400-1800 French art. Not Dutch Baroque; she was beside herself. BUT everything you do teaches something you need for what you are interested or investigating and Rembrandt was an outlier, he required a new approach. Academia IMHO is an unmovable object, given to resist anything that requires effort, where natural curiosity evaporated I do not know. I did the paper my way. In the studio arts one never settles for any version of anything they do, that is why there is tracing paper, or ‘delete’ or ‘save’ folders – painters in particular no sooner put aside a canvas than start all over again with the same subject, often there are a ‘series’ – its not an addiction, we’re chasing another perspective, something a viewer, friend, something we just thought about, and MUST try. Its why I prefer drawings, what appears to be messy, jittery thoughts by artist x, y, or z is actually their mental tracking through possibilities, still leaving traces on the paper, each one maybe viable – the next time. What might appear to be a waste of time to that academic (I’m talking to YOU Sean Cunningham) is instead tempting multiple perspectives, like leads for a Sherlock Holmes to pursue. when I came back to Richard, I was better prepared for the research I wanted to do but sadly still shocked how little academia itself has progressed – I widened by scope this time round and I can tell you, Philippa will have the last laugh on this moldy bunch. Consider the modern day crime scene where ‘not a trace of evidence’ is found, then forensics comes in and voila, every microbe, every infintessimal speck is meaningful somewhere and connects to something. We likely have more than enough to find what we are looking for, so let’s continue, eh? (Here’s a project for you, look into Andrew Dymmok, all round dogsbody to Antony Lord Rivers. He’s my no.1 candidate for Mr.Anonymous, Continuator of Croyland. I have three legs to the stool I want knocked out from under the compromised ‘sources’ – Tom More (way too easy, but there you are), Mancini (oh good grief), and Mr Anonymous. Throw a wide net, you’d be surprised what you pull in.

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      Reply
4. 

   Christine Kutlar-kreutz

   June 3, 2025 at 7:32 am

   Tim Thornton hat schon vorher Theorien aufgestellt, die er “entdeckt” hat! Da gibt es seinen Aufsatz über Thomas Lynom und seine Ehefrau “Jane” Elisabeth Shore. Es ist einerseits gut recherchiert, aber dann fügt er Fakten mit Vermutungen zusammen und behauptet, Lynom und Shore “könnten durchaus die Informanten für Morus gewesen sein!” Schlimm auch, wenn Tracy Bormann mit empört aufgerissenen Augen vom “blauen Samt ” erzählt. In einem Geschichtsblog gibt sie zwar zu, daß es eine “Rote Rose von Lancaster ” nie gegeben hat, erfindet aber im nächsten Satz eine “goldene Rose von Lancaster “. Ich habe sie angeschrieben und nachgefragt, wurde aber natürlich ignoriert. Auch der Heraldiker meines Vertrauens hat keine”Goldene Rose von Lancaster ” gefunden! Das Problem ist eben, daß die meisten Menschen den historischen Hintergrund nicht kennen und wenn ein historischer Professor etwas in der Öffentlichkeit behauptet, dann stimmt das auch! Ich bin auch der Meinung, daß es den konservativen Historikern nicht gut geht! 😂

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
5. 

   jay

   June 3, 2025 at 10:19 pm

   beth – you certainy have ‘lived experience’ of how new discourse is supressed or discredited. are you a member of the r3 society? if so – you probably saw a letter to the bulletin from dr david grummit in which he tried to challenge philippas experience of academia ‘. he had just been elected to the board of the society – i couldn believe it, his experience of academia may well be that it is full of open minded , free thinkers whose only motivation is the pursuit of knowledge -but it appeared a very curious intervention. i was about to write a reply to the bulletin – but was distracted by an equally infuriating missive by joanna laynsmith – defending her use of the word ‘usurper’ (apparantly its a convenient term to describe medieval regime change!! ) she didnt think it was intrinsiclty offensive but promised not to use it when people were likely to be upset by it! in other words -she knew it was offensive but used it anyway! she didnt care to expand on why it shouldnt be problematic for ricardians – ignoring the reality that its often used in the context of illegal accession and seldom used to describe other monarchs only richard!) i was so cross that i had to rethink my comments – and realised that they probably wouldnt be printed anyway. for this sort of thing to come from people of the board of our society – well – who needs enemies like borman and co! there is still a lot of works to do to refocus the narrative!

   LikeLiked by 2 people

   Reply