When people, who had known Richard III in life and would have seen evidence but obviously hadn’t, wrote subsequently that he suffered from kyphosis, not scoliosis, their statements are best described as lies, as shown by the evidence found in Leicester almost a dozen years ago.
When Henry VII re-legitimated his wife and thus his two brothers-in-law, both gained stronger claims than his and both, as the Missing Princes Project has demonstrated, emerged to assert these claims. When his propagandists pushed fake identities onto them, those statements are also best described as mendacious.
When Henry VII and his successors suppressed Titulus Regius in order to re-legitimate his wife, it is his underhand and unprecedented method of destroying the law unread that was the dishonesty in that context.
When later chroniclers and modern historians citing them have repeated earlier claims they knew to be false, or indeed have been disproven, the same descriptions should be applied to them, or indeed to those others who deny newly discovered evidence but are also too stupid to understand the terms “denial” and “Cairo dwellers“.
murreyandblue 