This piece does the opposite of acknowledging that history is written by the victors. It it is an attack on the credibility of a particular perspective, striving to paint the author's opponents as fictional story tellers while the author is objective and rational.
History ought to be an evidence driven practise - the evidence (primary, secondary, tertiary) should drive the theory. It ought to be the scientific method applied to historical evidence.
As I read this post, the author is saying that Bulstrode had very little or no evidence to claim the story that was then widely circulated in many media outlets. The author is using that one example to illustrate a wider principle in play - that not many of the historical stories are based in sound reasoning. This is my assessment too.
If there is little or no evidence, where is the greater bias? Is it in the person that conjures up the story (Bulstrode) or in the author who is saying the story is not well supported?
