More Cairo antics

Another example:

Someone wrote to suggest that Richard’s final charge at “Tudor”, in which he killed Mr. William Brandon (“Tudor”‘s standard bearer) and unhorsed Sir John Cheney, was a sign of cowardice. Never mind that thosee paid by the first two “Tudors” to lie about him admitted that the King died “fighting manfully” ….. “in the thickest press of his enemies”. This has to be the most hilarious case of denialism so far.

Unless, of course, you know differently.

By super blue

Grandson of a Town player.


  1. Um…can we get the reasoning behind this kind of thinking? The pathetic attempt to turn Richard the Third into a coward when even his worst enemies respected his moxie, is perplexing, to say the least.


  2. From the Oxford Dictionary:

    Cowardice: Lack of bravery. See coward.

    Noun. A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
    Adjective: Excessively afraid of danger or pain.
    Heraldry: (Of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.

    I respectfully suggest that the Cairo dwellers accusing Richard of cowardice because he headed *into* danger rather than away from it (on multiple occasions and not just at Bosworth) might want to analyze their “Tudor’s” actions the day of the battle. Because some might define as cowardice the Tudor’s hunkering down within a ring of mercenary pikemen until all danger had passed and someone else had butchered an anointed king for him.

    They might also want to examine the possible reasons behind Tudor’s becoming separated from his own army and “getting lost” on the way to the battle. Scholars have come up with a few possible reasons why this happened. Cowardice has been suggested as one of the possibilities.

    One might also define as cowardice the Tudor’s early action of creating a bodyguard to protect him all his days. (Today they’re known as Yeoman Warders.) I find it interesting that no previous king had ever felt the need to assign others to protect his person. Those kings were warriors. They knew how to fight.

    The Tudor was not a warrior, and he cared nothing for honor — on or off of the battlefield.


    1. And let’s not forget that Henry VII forced many nobles to post up onerous bonds in exchange for their loyalty.


  3. Well, I suppose now it has been proved that he was NOT a ‘hunchback’ or had a withered arm etc – they have to think of something else. Just making themselves look idiotic – and desperate imho.


  4. ….did Tudor do anything for himself? If it wasn’t his mother fighting his corner, it was the Stanley’s winning his battles……


  5. If the critical comment was published in an article, a book or a blog item there should be no problem. If it was in a private communication with one of the contributors to Murrey and Blue that would be a different matter.


    1. … So was the claim made in private correspondence? Or was it made in one of mass of the articles, books and blog items that have emerged since the finding of Richard III’s mortal remains during the Greyfriars dig?

      Where was the claim made, and – if they can be named – who made the claim?


  6. Sorry, Stephen, but your answers are too cryptic. I cannot read the clues. You will have to play Holmes to my Doctor Watson and explain who is the guilty party.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: