A great site

The over-sensitivity of the Cairo-dwellers

This time last week, we at Murrey and Blue saw a post trying make a very tenuous link between the “Lincoln Roll” (dating at least ten years after the Earl of Lincoln died”) and his cousins, Edward IV’s sons, suggesting that the Roll “proved” their deaths. We replied, correcting the poster on several points including: that it isn’t anything like evidence, that it is a bad translation and that it greatly post-dated Lincoln’s death. The author and his cronies seem not to have liked our reaction but we were cautious compared to some. Barnfield wrote that “the honest thing now would be for David to get his article taken down – if he thinks there is still something there he can usefully say, then he can rewrite it.”

The Cairo-dwellers have been accustomed to writing the most ridiculous rubbish about Richard and his real adherents for years but they really hate being challenged. Good. If their output is outlandish conjecture that makes the “Ladybird Book of Kings and Queens” look like an A-level text then we will tell them that. If they share an offensive cartoon about a hyphenated historian only Looking for Richard in order to have sexual relations with him, we will remind them of that. Those who attack others can scarcely squeal if the victim fights back and injures them.

They are sure not to like this book – due out in under four months now – from someone who seems to have a serious handle on the “Princes”:

The Dublin King

The Dublin King


Single Post Navigation

6 thoughts on “The over-sensitivity of the Cairo-dwellers

  1. Matt W. on said:

    Quite true. You made several excellent points in the original post and apparently many others thought so as well.

    To the topic: he made quite strong suggestions that the discovery of the roll somehow proved the fate of the princes, or at the very least a strongly held negative view towards them by others. I never quite got that, but whatever. He certainly is entitled to his opinion.

    As a relative newcomer to this topic, it is becoming apparent to me that not only did Richard not murder his nephews, but rather he very likely had them moved out of the tower for their very safety. Furthermore, I am getting a much deeper appreciation for how the original erroneous assumption came into being in the first place. The difference now is that technology allows any of us to have a look ourselves and make our own judgements.

    This being the case, others would be well advised not to complain when views are challenged and/or contrary notions put forth.

    I would have just expected or hoped that would be the case. I don’t know…


  2. There is a blogger who call’s herself The Anti White Queen (she is mentioned on KC’s blog ) who allegedly has a book on H7 coming out in 2015 ,anyway she has gone viral on this and plans to include it in her wretched book .


    • S Duffy on said:

      @ MTR – not another pseudo-historian!
      Give me strength! It is quite telling that she is featured on that particular blog.
      Are these people obsessed to the extent that they are unhinged?

      It seems the world and its wife thinks that they can masquerade as a historical expert these days!


    • I think I know who you mean – the one with the fantasies about Jasper “Tudor”, who censors the truth out of Wikipedia on this subject. Another Cairo-dweller.


  3. David D on said:

    Thank you for circulating the contents of the Roll more widely. I would point out that by emphasising the wrongly translated part – which many other people who were more expert than I also translated as ‘in June’ – you are diverting attention from the fact that the de la Poles do state that the Princes were dead.

    The use of the word youth applied in the period is quite appropriate for a 12 year old.

    Another point is that the biographical information for Richard does not match the known details for Perkin Warbeck.

    It is misleading to state that the Roll dates from after the death of Lincoln, fro these types of document would have been updated by the families. It is clear some later entries were added in the reign of Henry VIII. But this does not mean it all post dates Lincoln. Why would the University say it belonged to him if it post dated his death?


  4. mairemartello on said:

    It’s a shame that so many of the wrong people control Wikipedia – whether Ricardian-related or on any other topic. Often the truth can’t break through there. Sad.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: