[Swordmaker]

By the way, nothing irritates me more than when history is changed by modern man unless its proven without a shadow of a doubt the original account was false.

I thought the same about the allegation that Sir Walter Raleigh did not spread his cloak for the Queen and he merely "pretended" it was true. Would not he be a contemporaneous source—especially since he included it in his family coat of arm? This comment is based on a LACK of contemporary commentary.

The "pretended" comment is particularly egregious given the lack of facts to back it up. There were no "newspapers" with gossip columns— or anything like them that would have published such gossip—at the time. The closest thing was the posting of Broadsheets with announcements and some news that would be read by someone literate to whoever would listen. Word of mouth would have spread the story of the gallant Raleigh and such "gossip" may not or may not have been written down by any of the diarists of the day.

[normy]

We see eye to eye on this one. It is entirely possible that the cherry tree and the cloak stories are not true. It is also entirely possible they are true. Lately historians have been changing history to suit agendas. It smacks of an attitude of "no one would be that honest or that gallant so it must be false" and usually never based on new evidence.

Remember WWII? Well according to some the Holocaust didn't happen and the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war crimes and done due to the violent racism of America and not actually to save lives on both sides.