[John Vasco]

I wish to comment further on the matter of speculation, with reference to another period of history in which I am interested, which is tangential to the topic, but I believe is most illustrative. I’ve been a member of the Richard III Society since the mid-1980s, and receive the quarterly magazine, which includes letter from members.
Regarding the famous disappearance of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, one member wrote in and stated: ‘Yet he did, surely, order the deaths of his nephews as the only way to secure the throne.’ No evidence whatsoever was offered to support this contention. He also stated: ‘All Richard could do was to cause his nephews to disappear.’ Again, no evidence was offered to support this contention. He also stated: ‘there can be little doubt that he bore the guilt of it for the rest of his days.’ He’s making a judgement on Richard bearing guilt, when there is no way he can ever know what was in Richard’s mind! And to cap it off, he states: ‘How else to explain that last desperate charge at Bosworth except as an appeal to the judgement of God?' Yes, at this point I was laughing out loud!

Of course I replied, demolishing his speculation, and it was published in the June edition of the Society’s magazine. So, he will be seeing my reply for the first time in the last few days. He has had another letter published in the June magazine, and it turns out the guy went to Oxford University. Oh dear! In his long, rambling, letter, he says: ‘To judge an individual’s actions in history, we need to immerse ourselves in the day-to-day assumptions that frame his or her views of the world.’ What! One makes judgements on assumptions? There is more I could say about this guy’s June letter, but I will leave it there.

What I wished to highlight with the foregoing is that in the area of non-fiction, factual, research, there is no room for assumptions or speculation.

Loyaulte me lie