Of the eight assaults upon Queen Victoria, only Arthur O’Connor’s, on 29 February 1872, was committed out of sight of the public: O’Connor scaled the fence of Buckingham Palace and it was in an inner drive that he thrust his flintlock into the face of the Queen. In digging up details of the attack, then, the press was limited for eyewitnesses to those in Victoria’s household. It is perhaps surprising, then, that the Times’s first report on the attack is perhaps the most accurate report the newspaper made of any of the assaults. There’s a clear and accurate description of O’Connor himself, as well as one of the petition he was carrying: O’Connor hoped to force the Queen to free all Fenian prisoners. The public thus learned of O’Connor’s absurd motivation the morning after the attack. There are only two major errors in the Times’s report. The first is the statement that O’Connor was the grandson of the great Chartist leader, Feargus O’Connor. The Times was close, here—too close: Arthur was actually Feargus O’Connor’s great-nephew. The second error is both understandable, and revealing. The newspaper, in describing the Queen’s reaction to the assault, claimed “The Queen showed no sign whatsoever of fear.” Actually, when O’Connor threatened her, Victoria panicked, throwing herself upon her Lady of the Bedchamber, Jane Churchill, and crying out “Save me!” And afterwards, when she saw O’Connor’s pistol on the ground, she was “filled…with horror.” Of all the attacks upon her, she actually found this one the most frightening. But for once, her household could safely spin their accounts to the press to the Queen’s best advantage. And so, understandably, they all recounted that she was utterly undaunted by her crack-brained attacker.