Marci's memory

[ReneZ]

There's no way to know how much Marci remembered, or how correctly, [...]

I'm worried that you might take this thing about Marci's memory too seriously.

In January 1667, indeed, it is reasonable to be confused or have doubt. Kinner's statement about Marci having forgotten almost everything is immediately contradicted by his next sentence, in which he clearly states what Marci remembers.
I don't actually doubt that Marci has memory problems this time. Just of what nature, who knows?
In August 1665 it is a very different thing.

More in general, not to anybody in particular.....

What worries me even more is the mis-representation of historical research contained in the post of Diane above. It is one of the areas in which there has been most progress. Nobody has blindly followed Wilfrid's word. Everything he has said has been critically examined. Many, if not most of his statements (or rather ideas) have been shown to be wrong by now.
All of this was scholarly research. Most of it has been published in peer-reviewed books, some also reviewed by Czech historians.

Whether or not Rudolf personally owned the MS is also not such a big thing. It was certainly in Prague at the start of the 17th century. Whether or not it passed through Rudolf is not critical. It is likely, and also reasonable, considering his interests. It is a further avenue of historical research.

Another point that irks me is the slur of Stephen Bax, and indirectly of Edith Sherwood.
I don't think that Stephen's interpretations are correct. But I can't prove it.
Having an unproven theory about the Voynich MS should not be held against anyone.