A great site

Archive for the tag “Lincoln Roll”

Heading for a new record?

This is Richard Dunne, the player who has scored the most top flight own goals (ten in twenty seasons) since the beginning of the Premier League.

“David” is already challenging that total in a shorter time frame. Here are some of his career highlights:
1) Claiming that “Perkin” confessed his imposture to a Scottish Bishop, many years before that cleric was born.
2) Claiming that Henry VII was a senior Lancastrian, when he was junior to Richard III in that respect, being descended from a younger sister of Richard’s ancestress.
3) Claiming that the “Lincoln Roll” detailed Edward IV’s sons to have died as children, when it didn’t.
4) Claiming that Edward V and his siblings were legitimate because secret marriages were automatically illegal, except that his parents also “married” in secret. This part of the Fourth Lateran Council’s findings was frequently ignored – thankyou to Esther for locating it.
5) Claiming that Henry VII was Earl of Richmond from 1471-85, when the Complete Peerage shows him to have been under attainder.
6) Claiming that Catherine de Valois spoke in Parliament about her “marriage” to Owain Tudor after her death and centuries before any woman addressed an English or British Parliament.
7) Claimed that Henry VII’s supposed descent from Owain Glyn Dwr’s servant was as valid as Richard III’s descent from Llewellyn Fawr.
8) Claimed that “Perkin” directly accused Richard III of killing Edward V, whilst the transcript shows that he did not and had many uncles.

9) Claiming that Henry VI arranged Margaret Beaufort’s 1455 marriage to Edmund “Tudor” because there was no Lancastrian heir, even though his own apparent son had been born two whole years earlier.
10) Claiming that the “Lincoln Roll” was compiled for the eponymous Earl, who died in 1487, yet it frequently mentions much later dates.

While we are at it, we hereby confirm that we did not invent “David” to make counter-productive Aunt Sally comments. Does his Tardis need a service?


One troll in particular

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.

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

The “Lincoln Roll” and the desperate sandbagging of the Cairo residents

You have probably heard of the “Lincoln Roll”. It resides at the John Rylands Institute of the University of Manchester. It shows the strength of the de la Pole claim to the throne (John of Lincoln being of that family) and the weakness of the “Tudor” claim, having been featured in Dr. Thomas Penn’s BBC2 “Winter King” documentary last year.

You have also probably noticed the progressive and accelerating collapse of the traditional fairy tale about Edward IV’s sons but the denialists are trying to resurrect it. Just last year, Amy Licence tried to link Richard III’s visit to a shrine in Canterbury with a guilty conscience for a particular “crime”, forgetting Richard’s heightened religious mindset. So her headline was “Shock as deeply religious King visits shrine”, along the lines of “Dog bites man” and “Exclusive: Pope is a Catholic”.

The latest sandbag is the attempt by one David Durose, a soi-disant “Tudor”ist, to interpret the Roll to prove that Edward’s sons died in c. 1483. There are just a few problems here:
Sloppy or convenient (Armstrongesque) translations of the Latin – if I had sons of twelve and ten, it would be very premature to call them youths. It also bypasses them through their illegitimacy.
It is clearly written in two different hands, much like the Croyland Chronicle was by a succession of writers. Much of the second part post-dates Lincoln’s death in mid-1487, detailing Henry VII’s children (of whom only Arthur had been born) and possibly even citing Edmund of Suffolk’s 1513 execution.

The “Lincoln Roll” was surely drafted, quite possibly on the continent, to publicise the claim of his younger brother, Lord Richard, who planned an invasion from France in the years before his death at Pavia in 1524-5. One of Richard of Shrewsbury’s possible subsequent identities, “Perkin”, was long dead by then but neither he nor his brother were relevant to Lord Richard. Having said that, this is the same Durose who wrote of Catherine de Valois addressing Parliament about her “remarriage”, many years after she died and centuries before a woman actually addressed Parliament about anything.

Another sandbag fails. Back to square one?

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: