How “hard of understanding” are the denialists?
We ask this because David Durose is displaying even more symptoms of the Cairo Syndrome. He repeats many of his claims in the teeth of the evidence and makes more, unsupported, claims. The “Lincoln Roll” cannot have pertained to the younger John de la Pole, Earl thereof, if it mentions Henry VII’s younger children, unless he was a fortune-teller: “You will have seven children and four of them will survive infancy”? It is far more likely to pertain to Edmund or Richard, Lincoln’s younger brothers, one of whom was Earl of Suffolk and the other claimed that title whilst both were alive throughout Henry’s marriage.
The document was compiled in stages, of course, but the mis-translated suggestion that the “princes” were dead comes from the second stage, clearly in a different hand, probably relating to Lord Richard in c.1520. It really won’t do to claim that this document “proves” any death by 1487, any more than it did two weeks ago. Replying that “Oh yes it does” won’t do either because we are nearly three months from the pantomime season. “Denialist” is a euphemism and many words with the same meaning start with an “L”.
Our prescription is an apology and a withdrawal, on his part, accompanied by this advice: When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Meanwhile, we hear that someone else is trying to walk from Fotheringhay to Middleham. It may take her just a little longer than five minutes.