Would you like to ask Dr Starkey a question? If so please join his Members' Club. Patreon Members' Club: www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks Subscribestar Members' Club: www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks To make a donation visit www.davidstarkey.com Channel store shop.davidstarkey.com Thank you for watching.
@david Starkey talks I joined your Patreon as I cannot think of anyone else I’d like to support monetarily than Dr. Starkey. Would love a video on Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII and Edward IV at some point. Thanks!!!
Dr. Starkey, you are my FAVORITE. Your series, Monarchy, sparked my fascination with the history of the English Monarchy beyond the bare bone basics of the Tudors. I am SO happy that you refused to be bullied by the woke mob and started this podcast. Thank you and stay strong. You have more supporters than they think and we will stand firm.
@Brandi Hennerman Well said!!! I hope you see this comment, as I couldn’t agree with you more on everything you said in your comment. Like yourself, I also came to love the English Monarchy from watching the Monarchy miniseries, along with the four part he did on Elizabeth I and The Six Wives of Henry VIII. Furthermore, I agree with you as far as Dr. Starkey NOT allowing the recent backlash consume him and giving up. Personally, I believe his passing comment was taken way out of context, and it’s seems that is the environment we live in these days, much to my chagrin. Seems to me even the most minor comments can become twisted in this age of “cancel culture”. I applaud people like you who don’t give into such nonsense and support Dr. Starkey. What topics/persons would you like to see him post about if I might ask? I’m curious what others want to hear. I would love to see more about Edward IV, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII. So many are fascinated by Henry VIII and to me, Henry VII is glossed over, as is Mary I given Elizabeth’s shadow.
I read Paul Murray Kendall's excellent book on Richard III about 25 years ago...from what I read, he struck me as quite a good, fair and effective ruler...as well as a skilled military leader. The image of him for centuries was a classic case of "history being written by the victors"...and those victors were mostly brutal, treacherous and highly opportunistic.
@@blackcat2628zd Fact is though that the nobles did not in fact back him. The kindest interpretation is that he was perceived as just another king of dubious provenance and that they did not care to risk the lives of themselves and their sons to fight for this cause.
@@andrewblake2254 "The nobles did not back him" - well, most nobles - with a few, but vital exceptions - did back him until he had the misfortunate to be killed in battle.
If one reads the sequence of events that led to his enthronement, then it's clear he left nothing to chance. He was meticulous in his planning, and the idea that he'd ignore 'the elephant in the room' - the two princes whose very existence was the final obstacle to his plans - is absurd. Richard apologists always ignore the elephant in the room.
The contemporaries didn't think Richard III was nasty until after the suspicious events in the chaos after Edward IV's death. He was actually the ideal, being steadfastly loyal to the king, an good commander/warrior that won in Scotland, and an effective administrator of the lands his brother gave him to manage. He didn't have a nasty reputation that preceded him like his brother George did. If he was always evil and plotting many of his choices during the Wars of the Roses wouldn't make sense. The whole mystery is about how Richard went from an English hero to the darkest villain. The decision to take power was obviously something he didn't plan until very late into the events when he thought it was the only logical course of action. The best conclusion for Richard was that he was a man of his time. This is supposedly bad because his predecessor and successor Edward IV and Henry VII were both similarly ahead of their time. Both of them were willing to compromise with their enemies if possible but Richard always wanted to ride out and destroy them. He had 0 tolerance for his enemies, especially Lancastrians, and this is consistent with his behavior during the early Wars of the Roses. One example of this is when Margaret Beaufort asks Richard if her son Henry Tudor could come back to England the night before Richard III's coronation and after a long talk he ends up saying no thereby turning her against him. Ironic as he spent the next 2 years hunting Henry Tudor in Europe!
I agree with you, I am not one of those people trying to restore his good name, as far as I'm concerned all the players here are nasty always doing anything to gain power, but they all seem to have one law pass the power to their family. Richard had fought his entire adult life so that the plantagenets would continue to rule, I will never believe that he would have killed his( other than his infant son) last remaining male relatives,I don't think so. I think the murders is a Tudor story and why should we believe them.
I've become devoted to your website. And I look forward avidly to each new lecture. I curse the fools, knaves and cowards who insulted and smeared you. But at least, directly or indirectly, it has led to these wonderfully rich and enlightening lectures. Thank you so much.
@@johnbest4513 Originally from Leicestershire, I got them from the Richard III centre near Leicester cathedral before I got the train back to university a few weeks back.
@@Swift-mr5zi I see that makes more sense then. Cool stuff though. I want to visit where Edward I died in Cumbria and would like to visit the Richard III center as well.
@@johnbest4513 Its not very big but seeing the grave is worth it. It's both shocking and sobeing seeing it, from the most powerful man in the British Isles to then being strung up make naked in public and then buried hardly a foot deep by (probably) some French or Welsh mercenary.
From my reading on Richard III, I think he made a calculated move: either I go or my nephews do. So off they went. Of course, the irony is that eventually he went too...
I can understand Richard needing to eliminate his nephews as potential foci for opposition. However, there is no point in killing them and then leaving doubt that they are dead. Why did he not give them elaborate public funerals?
Which is a counter-argument for him not murdering the ex-princes. Truthfully, no one knows what happened to either boy. They disappear from memory after 1483 and, unlike their sisters, are not written of (to our knowledge) again. There is a Suffolk legend that the boys were living with their mother at one of the large houses in that county. I do find it very hard to believe that Lady Grey (Elizabeth Woodville, the former queen) would have publicly reconciled with Richard in 1484 to the extent of trusting her daughters with him if she knew or suspected her boys were dead. Furthermore, Richard publicly swore to find good marriages for both girls and in 1484-5 was negotiating with the royal family of Portugal for Elizabeth (the daughter) to marry one of the princes, while he himself was to wed the Princess Joanna (a highly intelligent and religious woman, who would not have consented to marry a murderer as Richard is portrayed). Both marriages were agreed and were stopped only by Richard's death. Now, the prospect of Richard marrying again, siring sons (remember his only surviving legitimate child died in 1484) and reestablishing the Yorkist dynasty meant that 1485 was a big, if not desperate gamble for the parties around Henry soi-disant, Earl of Richmond. Now or never.
Why did he not give them public funerals. Because then he would have to admit he killed them and even back then the murder of children was held in contempt. Those two boys were still threats no matter what
@@cherrytraveller5915 Why would he have to admit to killing them? Oh dear, poor souls died in their sleep or from the bloody flux etc. Secretly murdering and burying the boys would have been the stupidest course of action because then (as happened historically) anyone could bring forward pretenders. A public funeral states that the boys are dead and the public have seen their bodies lying in state AND buried by their mother.
@@cherrytraveller5915 It would have been easy enough to drug the princes and/or smother them in their sleep, then put put the story that the poor dears had died of fever. The point of my comment is that dead princes do Richard no good unless their deaths are unequivocally public knowledge. Otherwise, they can be used as foci for rebellion. There was enough doubt about the younger boy's demise for the Perkin Warbeck claim to be Richard duke of York to cause Henry VII an existentially serious problem.
Dr Starkey , I read recently that after Bosworth Henry brought a bill of Attainder against Richard to Parliament to legitimize his claim to the throne, yet with all the usual and expected accusations of cruelty and tyranny he never brings up the murders of the princes, surely a trump card. Can you tell me if this is true, it seems an unlikely omission considering his objective. Thankyou. M Mckever.
This channel is very exciting for those of us who love history. We are truly blessed to have a hero such as David Starkey in our lives. I quiver with anticipation for the episodes to come. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I think the supposed "no show" of the aristocracy at Bosworth is something of a myth. It's hard to find a better turn out than for Richard anywhere in the period bar Towton. Of course some of them were mere spectators... In contrast the only peers in Henry's army were long attainted nobles such as Uncle Jasper and the Earl of Oxford with his sidekick Viscount Beaumont, all of whom had been trailing around in exile for years. The day was won by Henry's continental pikemen and the treachery of William Stanley (for which much thanks from Henry), not the absence of Richard's peers.
I must say that I thought the image of Richard III as especially evil was just Tudor propaganda, but Dr Starkey's evidence that he was thought to have murdered the princes and been a bad person before the time of Henry VII has somewhat altered my views.
I recently re-watched channel 4's "The Trial of King Richard III" in which you appeared as a witness for the prosecution. I must say you where withering towards the prosecutor, at one point I thought you where going to throw something at him.
DS has been around for quite a while, yet he still seems such a breath of fresh air. Always entertaining and informative, sometimes controversial (no bad thing).
Richard became the Royal Protector to his nephews, that job is normally a death sentence as different court factions attempt to seize power. For Richard it was either kill or be killed, it might explain some of his choices/actions.
Especially with both Margaret Boefort & Elizabeth Woodville conspiring against him. I just wish we knew for sure, whether it was Richard that ordered those boys killed. Sure wish the new King would allow those bones they found in the Tower, & the remains of Edward the 4th to be DNA tested! And if those bones turn out to be the boys, they need to have an Honorable burial like Richard finally got! 🧐
This is exactly what I think. Plus I believe he feared the "Woodville " influence, and both the young King and the Duke of York were half-Woodville. It goes back to the controversy of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage. It enraged many of the important people in England as well as continental Europe. Once Elizabeth Woodville was installed as Queen, she secured prime positions and marriages for many of her family so they had a lot of influence. I've read she and Richard had had issues and I think Richard feared that she and her family could get Richard ousted as the Lord Protector of the young King. He may have worried about being exiled, properties and goods confiscated, and perhaps assassination. I think Richard III likely justified his actions by thinking he was preventing England from being destroyed by the Woodville faction, preventing civil war, and other disaster. If it meant the two boys had to die, so be it. This is what I believe happened.
I have never understood the Ricardian determination to whitewash Richard. I have never watched Shakespeare's play, having been massively put off by the clips of Sir Lawrence Olivier over-acting in the title role - so I don't think I'm unduly influenced by "Tudor historians". We don't discuss Shakespeare as a key influence on public perception of Julius Caesar, after all. The recent discovery of Richard's bones seems to me to have implications for understanding Richard's character. As a result of his scoliosis, he was much shorter than he should have been, especially by comparison with his towering older brother Edward IV. Given his stature and "gracile arm bones", Richard must have had some difficulty developing the upper body strength required to wield knightly weapons. So he does deserve credit for his perseverance and military achievements. It also seems likely that his constricted chest caused him significant pain and difficulty in breathing and sleeping, especially in later years, including the night before Bosworth Field. I do wonder whether he was quietly jealous of Edward, who was so effortlessly successful in battle, with the ladies and at siring a large family. Not to same extent as their middle brother, George Duke of Clarence, who clearly went mad with envy, but enough to make Richard quietly loathe Queen Elizabeth Woodville and her "beautiful children", especially the princes. Richard is always portrayed as loyal to his brother, but he comes across as socially isolated and singularly lacking in charm. Few of his councillors appear to have liked him very much. His priggish disdain for the excesses of Edward's court may help to explain his notably unjust behaviour towards Edward's great friend Lord Hastings (his worst mistake?), the Queen's brother, Lord Rivers, and Prince Edward's devoted staff. Richard was quite happy to malign his redoutable mother and declare his brother and his nephews bastards in order to buttress his right to usurp the throne. I find the suggestions that the Princes were murdered on the orders of Lady Margaret Beaufort, the Duke of Buckingham, or the future Henry VII risible, due to lack of documentary evidence, character and/or lack of access to the Tower. Whatever happened to the Princes, it happened on Richard's watch, as did the earlier murder of Henry VI in the Tower. Attempting to distract attention by keeping totally silent about their fate, displaying very public religiosity and placating the public by passing crowrd-pleasing laws look like the actions of a hypocrite who was not at ease with his conscience. Overall, Richard comes across as a typical late 15th century, battle-hardened warlord, less bloody than some, but no model of a just or enlightened king.
I think two things are evident. One, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was not on the up-and-up: it was done in secret and it wasn't announced until four months after the fact. Two, the Woodvilles and certain councilors were attempting a coup, in order to undermine Edward's last will declaring Richard the Lord Protector. Some curiosities stick out, such as Anthony Woodville, Lord Rivers, proceeding to London in arms and quartering in Stony Stratford - which was much smaller than Northampton, and also closer to London. He had Edward V with him and it's clear he was trying to get to London to have young Edward crowned as soon as possible. When Richard took the king into his custody, the council turned half of the treasury funds over to Elizabeth Woodville's brother, the Lord Admiral, and he promptly took the funds to sea. Elizabeth was also given possession of the Great Seal for no good reason. Richard had his reasons to be wary. The previous two Lords Protector, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, and Richard's own father, the Duke of York, were executed during their time. Richard had witnessed the betrayals that led to, firstly, his brother's imprisonment, and, secondly, his brother's overthrow. Professor Starkey notes that the nobility of England sat on their hands as Henry Tudor and Richard fought at the Battle of Bosworth Field. I think most people are not brave, and they will accommodate themselves to whatever authority is in power. Plenty of England's nobles were willing to support Henry VI's rule despite him being clearly incapacitated and the whip hand being held by his ambitious wife (shades of Elizabeth Woodville, there). Both Richard II and Henry VI were executed surreptitiously by the regimes that overthrew them. Neither of these executions and usurpations led to widespread revolt. The Battle of Bosworth Field was won by the Stanley brothers, regular turncoats during the Wars of the Roses. Notably, William Stanley, the man whose men bashed Richard's head in, was executed by Henry VII. The entire period of the 15th Century featured recurring struggles for power. The two revolts under Richard's brief reign were spearheaded by dynasts, the Duke of Buckingham and Henry Tudor - both of whom were descendants of Edward III and had ostensible claims to the throne. What began with Richard II's execution, continued into the Tudor regime, with the executions of Edward, Earl of Warwick (grandson of the Kingmaker and the last direct-line male Plantagenet), sons of Edward IV's sister, the brothers de la Pole, and the Duke of Buckingham's son. The nobility of England, typical of political figures throughout the ages, hedged their bets and compromised in order to maintain their positions.
I think the ever-present Ricardians need to make occasional (or even a single) use of Occam's Razor when it comes to considering Richard III, his reign and his murder of his nephews. And, as you well know, Richard III's father wasn't executed. He died in battle during an attempt to overthrow his monarch because he hadn't the patience or loyalty to keep his side of a frankly astonishingly generous deal offered him by a king of who's feeble-mindedness he (and to be fair, others) had consistently and ruthlessly taken advantage.
I agree more or less with everything, only Richard, Duke of York died in the battle. Richard II and Henry VI were killed, execution is a legal act which requires a trial.
@@kasimsultonfan Occam's Razor? The princes were illegitimised thus lawfully posed no threat to richards claim to the throne. Henry 7 repeals laws that reinstate the princes claim thus pose a direct threat to Henry.......
I would love to know how your average person...like say a villager...going about their daily business of getting enough food to eat, look after their family..do whatever job they might have...how did they even know what on earth the king was doing?... There were no newspapers or television etc to give people reports on what the nobility were up to...so how did people have any idea what the king for instance was doing?
Wasn’t there someone called a Town Cryer ? Hear ye. Hear ye . Hear ye . While ringing a bell to gather all around him in the town square and dispense his news . Otherwise, don’t know
@@mariapalmer5671 True...I suppose there was...Town Cryers I think though would of mainly serviced more populated areas and around the time we are talking I believe most folk lived in little hamlets and small villages. Plus also...who decided what the "Town Cryers" actually shouted out?... It could of just been paid propoganda from the wealthy nobility lot. But thank you for offering your kind reply to my question. It is appreciated 😁
I think Richard was/would have been an effective king under different circumstances - he showed real military ability, which as Dr Starkey has pointed out, was the crux of effective kingship at the time. And he certainly was ruthless enough. But the whole Ricardian argument is essentially an emotional spasm; history by sentimentality. This weird impulse which seems to grow with every year that no individual in history was actually all that bad, or did bad things. (Apart from the ones who did good things, who obviously were bad) The Princes - a misnomer as one of them was a former king - posed a threat to Richard as long as they remained alive simply by virtue of who they were. Their claim was superior in blood to his, and the Titulus Regius could never deprive them of that status. What happened to Henry VI? What happened to Richard II? What happened to Edward II? All of these had been deprived of the crown and they all met the same fate. Why? Because in this period a former king is too dangerous to be allowed to live by their successor, no matter that their deposition has been ratified by current political reality and law. As Richard's whole reign shows, in the politics of the time those are transitory. As it was, Richard was deposed by a French-backed fringe candidate for the throne. If Edward V or Richard - which is to say an actual king or his brother, proper royalty - had escaped captivity and a rebellion raised in their name? Without a doubt he would have been finished. Richard was far from an idiot and would have been all-too keenly aware of that given what he'd lived through.
I am so sick of hearing this Tudor myth about "the evil hunchback murderer of the poor nephews in the tower." I truly think he is somewhere down the middle of what the contemprary accounts were at the time and The White Queen's version of him. Not the devil incarnate nor a Saint. Just a man trying to do the best for his family and people. A couple things about Richard III. "I liked never the conditions of any prince so well as his; God hath sent him to us for the weal of us all..." - Thomas Langton, Bishop of St Davids. "By contrast with kings before and after him, he indulged in no financial extortion, no religious persecution, no violation of sanctuary, no burning at the stake, no killing of women, no torture or starvation, and no cynical breach of promise, pardon or safe-conduct in order to entrap a subject." - Richard III The Maligned King Annette Carson. "On hearing the news of Edward's death at Nottingham, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief." "He showed his grief and displeasure and was not glad of the death of his queen, but as sorry and in heart as heavy as a man might be." "Never has so much spirit or greater virtue reigned in such a small boy. As far as we can judge, Richard fulfilled his obligations and more, and for a medieval prince that was remarkable." He wasn't the evil hunchbacked child murderer the Tudors and Shakespeare made people view him as...
Excellent, thanks David. I often wonder how these figures square their morality/fear of the afterlife (Hell) with acts like cold blooded murder. I'm sure he justified it in his head at the time.
Thank you David. This is like being privileged to an intermate tea with a great intellect. Your cancellation has been the best thing that has happened to us.
Dr Starkey. I feel Richard was forced into his ruthless actions seeing his loyalty to his brother Edward pushed to the limit with Edward secretly marrying Elizabeth Woodville and the infiltration of the Woodville's /Grey's at court. Edwards desire to do what he wanted as opposed to his duty is obviously what pissed Warwick off as well. Richard I feel was never happy with his actions although he felt to save the crown from the Woodville/Grey influence he had to go through with such murderous deeds.
Back in the 80s (I think) Channel 4 broadcast “The Trial of Richard III” to examine the evidence against him regarding the “princes in the tower”. A real judge, jury and barristers with historians as the prosecution and defence witnesses. Really excellent - not least because our own Dr Starkey was a witness - and, let’s just say, he’s definitely mellowed with age! Very interesting & illuminating for anyone interested in Richard. You can find it here on YT if you search.
Just caught it. Having appreciated Starkey the contrarian up to now even I thought this was next level. “Burned “ I think is what it’s called. I have also been too hasty in criticising his lack of evidence against the Ricardian (my own) claims….but here it is and I’ve got another think coming! It’s why he’s the best.
@@melvincain5012 Obviously after five-hundred years, there won't be evidence that would convict him in a court of law now. So you're asking for the impossible. But given that, R III had the motive and opportunity: No one else (realistically) could get near the princes. And it's obvious that Richard couldn't take the throne and leave the boys alive, boys who had such strong claims to the throne. He even murdered his erstwhile friend, Hastings, because he would have not tolerated Richard's usurption. And the other so-called suspects: Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham, aliens? No, as Professor Starkey said - Richard is 99.99999% certain to have ordered their murders.
@@davidmorris3981 Then why didn’t Henry VII shout about this after Bosworth? Why didn’t he order an enquiry as to goings on in the Tower in the previous two years when the personnel and records were right there? Because the Princes were still alive. Richard was looking after them and their sisters and cousins as the loyal Yorkist he had been his entire life. Why did Henry act so suspiciously and illegally in the first weeks of his usurpation? Can’t believe the sainted Dr S can be so blindsided about Richard’s reign ; Richard 99.9999% did NOT harm or cause harm to those boys.
One question, for which there can only be given an opinion. Supposing Henry, either before or after Bosworth, had access to the Princes in the Tower, what would he have done? Restore them to Kingship? or something else? I'd say that it's 50/50 whether the princes were killed by agents of Richard or agents of Henry.
@@CanadianMonarchist That would be very dangerous move. For the boys. It would be much easier for Richard to announce deaths of the boys from sweating sickness or whatever else and showed their bodies. If he had killed them. Everybody would be happy and moved on. The only reason why Richard didn´t show their dead bodies was that they were alive.
Langton is interesting. Your earlier pseudo-courtroom drama as a witness casting doubt on the veracity of the Ricardian apologists away from Richard in the events post Edward IV was memorable. Not sure he was innocent of the murder of Henry VI either. After returning from Tewkesbury I think there was evidence that Richard was present in the Tower on that fateful day too but I could be wrong. Richard had been loyal to his brother at Barnet and Tewkesbury which makes his later volte-face more remarkable. Someone else at Barnet and a remarkable survivor was deVere, the Earl of Oxford, a bit of an unreported figure and a remarkable survivor, often willing to go into the thick of it, escaping from Hammes and a major figure in the birth of the Tudors by being at the sharp-end at both Bosworth & Stoke fields. "Loyalty binds me" Richard's soubriquet seemed to have deserted him from Edward and Hastings. Much obliged for your lectures and details.
Isn't it accepted historically that when Richard was just Duke of Gloucester, he was the one who bludgeoned Henry VI to death whilst he was at prayer, probably onEdward's orders?
@once a musician Sorry for the delay, just seen your post. 🙂 It was a programme on t.v. I think around the discovery of Richard's body and it was an old rcourt room drama that had previously done. The Ricardians were called to the dock to give evidence that Richard was innocent of crimes. A younger Dr. Starkey came on and gave his well-reasoned prosecution that Richard is it guilty as charged. He was his feisty self before he "mellowed". Memorable. I'm sure he may remember it and might help put it up or give you directions. I don't know if he has rights to it but he has put up an episode of the Churchills so he may have. It is well worth seeing. He was on his combative brilliant form. Thank you for your message. 🙂
@@petah-peoplefortheendlesst4668 Not sure. 🤔 Edward and Richard had only just returned from Tewkesbury where Edward of Westminster, the Prince of Wales, had been killed, possibly in cold blood and possibly by Clarence himself as it is surmised he was captured by Clarence's men. Queen Margaret and the recently widowed Ann Neville were reportedly captured at a nearby Convent. The Yorkists nearly had all their ducks-in-row. Hard to have "smoking gun" evidence for a lot of things. Eye-witness accounts rare and may have been biased. Apparently Henry did not die of melancholy as the Yorkist spin purported. He sadly died the same evening the Yorkist brothers returned to London. Whether a lieutenant did the deed or no is conjecture. It is said that there is record of Richard being in the Tower on the scene. It was in Edward's interest but did Richard or one of his henchmen do it? A re-interment of Henry showed hair on his skull with evidence of blood. Thank you for your interest.
@@user-np7dv2rx4c You are right I don't think you'll ever find "smoking-gun" evidence. One is left with motive, means and opportunity and it will inevitably through the unlikely existence of an eye-witness account remain a mystery. You could say what happened to Edward of Westminster, the Prince of Wales at Tewkesbury? Was he murdered in cold blood after the battle by George Duke of Clarence's men or even by Clarence himself? It is ironic that Edward Prince of Wales is buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Tewkesbury came under George Duke of Clarence's estates and his and his wife Lady Isabel Neville's skulls are buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. It was in Edward's interest to tie up loose ends and the very same evening the Yorkists entered London Henry was murdered. It is recorded that Richard was the only one on the scene, not Edward. Whether he was responsible or had a henchmen do it it's unlikely hard evidence will emerge. Thank you for your interest.
The problem people have with Richard is that they can't reconcile that he can do things like murder his nephews AND still have good qualities. So they either demonize or deify him, and neither is right. He was capable of great generosity and nobility, but also more than happy to use brutal, extrajudicial murder to achieve his aims.
@@louthegiantcookie How can I disagree with something I don´t know? So step 1: tell me what you think Richard did. Step 2: I will tell you if I agree or not, Step 3 We can discuss our standpoints. If I wanted to insult you, I´d do it already:-D.
Crikey, surely the only person to gain from the princesses death is Henry VII, after he moved to legitimize all of Edwards children to marry Edwards daughter, didn't Henry systematically murder his way through the Plantagenets? I wouldn't trust the word of someone who ended up working for Henry either.
I only recently discovered your TH-cam channel Dr. Starkey. I’m a great admirer. Richard III is a fascinating character as are his times. What is your opinion on the evidence that his older brother Edward IV was possibly his half brother. There seems to be the strong possibility Edward IV was the result of an affair between his mother and another man and fathered by not Richards III father or Georges Richard of York. Is it possible Richard III was aware Edward IV was in fact illegitimate and so therefor were his sons? With older brother George dead, might Richard III have seen himself as the true and legitimate heir?
for all of Edward IV's extravagance it didn't negatively impact the realm. Rather than impoverish the kingdom as these kind of extravagant kings often do, instead his governership saw a massive increase of the general wealth in England as he pulled England out of debt and oversaw an explosion in education through both the introduction of the printing press and an increased royal support for various colleges and universities. if any English king has been badly maligned by history its not Richard III, its Edward IV (as well as his Woodville in-laws)
there have been more king far worse than richard i cant beleive in some of the tudor or shakespeares take on richard but then again if richard had won art bosworth then history would have been quite different so thanks once again for your upload david if you ever come to leicestershire you will be welcome have subscribed to your channel bye for now avon leicestershire 2021
First, please let me tell you that I’m thrilled with this channel….. I devour everything of yours I find on the internet! To me, it always seemed totally reasonable and logical that Richard III offed the princes and I’m not particularly shocked by it…….(although the fact that they were children is especially chilling)…….The act would also be consistent with the politics of the times. The Woodvilles were waiting in the wings to control the throne via the Woodville family’s connection to the heir….. I think it was a “us or them” choice for Richard. Pretty typical for those very bloody times.
Whatever happened to Michael Wood ? Superb presenter. Prof. Robert Bartlett is another that should have been used more by the TV. Instead we now have Dan Snow .... All these people would be great guests on this channel except Dan Snow
I actually stumbled upon this channel because i have a great interest in wars of the roses. Initially i had no clue as to who David Starkey was but to me he seemed very biased towards the Tudors from his videos, after researching who he was ( and some of his unsavoury comments) turns out I wasn't wrong.
What is 'great' about this TH-cam site is we can agree to disagree with Dr Starkey and no one is vicious or 'cancels' anyone. It's about hearing different viewpoints and the reasoning behind it. I still believe Henry VII killed the princes as it makes sense to me but I can still admire and stand in awe of Dr Starkey's knowledge.
Thank you for enlightening - my wonder. You have confirmed my knowledge as I did wonder why, and from who - the story came from that he could have been different.
That was a very interesting and brief overview of Richard III, last of the Plantagenet kings - so thank you for that David Starkey. I saw a joke a few months ago about the finding of the remains of Richard III beneath a car park. First archaeologist: 'Oh look at this! Richard III skeleton is in two different parking spaces!' Second archaeologist: 'Indeed, his evil knew no bounds!'
O.K. Richard the Third may have satisfied the expectations of the people up there in the north and he may even have been much loved by the populace there but this does not preclude his having committed the dastardly act of doing away with his nephews - there are so many historical parallels - Hitler for example - seems to have been much loved initially by the German public and had a reputation for getting things done and sorting out the mess of the Weimar republic. Napoleon too but this didn't preclude his doing away with the duc d'Enghien one of the remnants of the ancien Regime. Stalin is still adored in his native Georgia and Jenghis Khan is the great hero of the Mongolian people and has had a gigantic statue erected in Ulaan bator. Timur (Tamerlane to westerners) is estimated to have killed millions in India and other places but is an absolute hero in his native Uzbehkistan. Just because Richard was loved and admired by some of the people close to him proves nothing!
hello again david your words on richard i think were a little harsh but then again richard given a longer time as king i am sure would have done a lot of good his loss and also my leicestershires great loss by richard being betrayed and deposed that day is rather i think for us a very personal blow us in leicestershire will allways think good of him i dont beleive for one moment that those york boys were killed by richard but any way i think that your new youtube channel is very good yours again avon leicestershire 2021
I don't really understand why Richard III has so many fans. I'm American and I've never been to England, so maybe I'm too far removed from all of this but in my mind it's his actions that truly lead to the end of the Plantagenet dynasty. . He didn't have Edward V disinherited because he was so very deeply about the morality of the monarchy. He used that crap to justify his own ambitions, which mattered to him more than anything. Was he one of history's greatest monsters? Probably not. But to turn him into this poor, abused teddy bear who did nothing wrong to anyone is just such obvious bullshit.
E4 children were declared illegitimate by the parliament. They believed the evidence which bishop Stillington provided so who are we not to do the same? Probably you have a source proving legitimacy of Edward´s and Elizabeth´s marriage. I guess not because back then it was general knowledge that Edward had wife (Eleanor Talbot) before. And it was the representatives of parliament who offered Richard the crown. He took a couple of days to think about it. Situation especially in London was very chaotic and rule of another child king would be devastating.
@@blackcat2628zd Yeah, and I'm sure the members of Parliament who wanted Richard as king, because they were his buds and looking for ways to advance their own families, weren't just looking for a convenient reason to say "Edward's kids don't count, Richard is the clear choice for King." And if Edward and Elizabeth Woodville weren't really married, then why did Richard Neville get so pissed off about it that he completely switched sides. He was also trying to negotiate a marriage between Edward and one of the French king's relatives at the time he found out Edward got married behind his back. If Edward's precontract with Eleanor Talbot was recognized by anyone at the time of the Woodville marriage, then why didn't the Earl of Warwick consider it an impediment to his plans for Edward? Did he just sort of forget about it or what?
@@amyrat151 Richard didn´t have too many buds in Parliament. He spent his whole adult life as Governor of the North. Means he lived in the North, travelling to London rarely. He was very popular by his people. One of the reason why was because he had great sense of justice. Very often he decided in a favour of the poor against the rich. Also he didn´t accept any bribes. It´s clear that he wasn´t favourite of the powerful and rich. Yet they voted for him. Because it was the best solution and he was the best man for the job. But Richard remained the same honest and pious person, didn´t play their political games. For this he paid the ultimate price at Bosworth. Warwick was pissed for many reasons, the secret marriage (marriages, Eleanor might be not the only other one), he was very ambitious, losing his influence over Edward was very painful for him.
@@blackcat2628zd conveniently waiting 19 years to start scream illegitimate. Why is the fact that wanted rid of the Rivers family not occur to you as the reason why the nobles even went with that plan. They wanted rid of the upstarts. Oh wait you’re a Richard fan. Why am I wasting my time
david i wish you a merry christmas and a safe new year stay well and safe see you soon thanks again yours avon leicestershire 2021 hope to hear from you soon avon
Not only am I a fan of r3. But I think it's just as likely he didn't kill nephews. He moved them. Why didn't he produce them to silence rumors? Bc support cannot rally around those believed to be dead. There's evidence he did just that. Staff vanished. Bc he moved em. H confessed to everything but never that. And I think Henry 7th found out they were alive, and after presumably shitting his pants had them immediately killed. . Even if he DID kill them fine so what. He was better at it than a child for one and 2 he never intended to but was left with legit one choice which is to t ake throne and kill him due to the action ofgh woodvilles who were being super shady as well. Richard was a hero who was done wrong.
Why didn't Queen Elizabeth II attend the funeral ceremony of King Richard III? Why did she send her cousin Prince Richard of Gloucester to represent her and the royal family in this important event? Why the Queen didn't give gun salutes and RAF planes to King Richard? Can you tell us Professor David Starkey?
Traditionally, English/British monarchs did not attend the funerals of their predecessors. Furthermore, the late queen did not attend funerals which which might have appeared political or controversial. She, as you say, sent her cousin, who like RIII is a duke of Gloucester, which seems appropriate. I can't imagine what the reaction might have been to the queen's spending the money for a military salute of the kind you mention for a king dead hundreds of years, and about whom people have very strong opposing opinions.
With total respect to all, Richard Gloucester was just as good at playing the benevolent King, as he was the Ruthless, one. Yes. A man of his times: Needing to be seen Christ like or Pious as much as possible, but acting brutally when he believed he needed to. As for the Princes, its anyone's guess, still. Richard is, at best, an even money favourite. But they only come in 50% of the time. Henry Tudor, Buckingham are 2/1 shots. Maybe 5/2, AT MOST. Because these are 2 men proven to be brimming with arrogance, political genius and a will to act. BOTH stood to gain much from there murder, or even capture.
Would you like to ask Dr Starkey a question? If so please join his Members' Club.
Patreon Members' Club: www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks
Subscribestar Members' Club: www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks
To make a donation visit www.davidstarkey.com
Channel store shop.davidstarkey.com
Thank you for watching.
@david Starkey talks I joined your Patreon as I cannot think of anyone else I’d like to support monetarily than Dr. Starkey. Would love a video on Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII and Edward IV at some point. Thanks!!!
DS is a fan of HVII so what's the point? Anything to do with Richard is wrong. I bet he would say Richard was guilty before he was born!
@@MarilynRB😂😂😂😂😂
Dr. Starkey, you are my FAVORITE. Your series, Monarchy, sparked my fascination with the history of the English Monarchy beyond the bare bone basics of the Tudors. I am SO happy that you refused to be bullied by the woke mob and started this podcast. Thank you and stay strong. You have more supporters than they think and we will stand firm.
How many times can you say Woke in a day? Triggered twit.
Uh, I counted 1.
@@basfinnis Methinks you’re the one who is sounding triggered here. 😉😏
@Brandi Hennerman Well said!!! I hope you see this comment, as I couldn’t agree with you more on everything you said in your comment.
Like yourself, I also came to love the English Monarchy from watching the Monarchy miniseries, along with the four part he did on Elizabeth I and The Six Wives of Henry VIII. Furthermore, I agree with you as far as Dr. Starkey NOT allowing the recent backlash consume him and giving up. Personally, I believe his passing comment was taken way out of context, and it’s seems that is the environment we live in these days, much to my chagrin. Seems to me even the most minor comments can become twisted in this age of “cancel culture”.
I applaud people like you who don’t give into such nonsense and support Dr. Starkey. What topics/persons would you like to see him post about if I might ask? I’m curious what others want to hear. I would love to see more about Edward IV, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII. So many are fascinated by Henry VIII and to me, Henry VII is glossed over, as is Mary I given Elizabeth’s shadow.
I read Paul Murray Kendall's excellent book on Richard III about 25 years ago...from what I read, he struck me as quite a good, fair and effective ruler...as well as a skilled military leader. The image of him for centuries was a classic case of "history being written by the victors"...and those victors were mostly brutal, treacherous and highly opportunistic.
I agree with you. Richard was probably too good to be a king. He was just, honest, brave and loyal, i.e. he wasn´t a politician (like his brother)..
@@blackcat2628zd Fact is though that the nobles did not in fact back him. The kindest interpretation is that he was perceived as just another king of dubious provenance and that they did not care to risk the lives of themselves and their sons to fight for this cause.
@@andrewblake2254 "The nobles did not back him" - well, most nobles - with a few, but vital exceptions - did back him until he had the misfortunate to be killed in battle.
If one reads the sequence of events that led to his enthronement, then it's clear he left nothing to chance. He was meticulous in his planning, and the idea that he'd ignore 'the elephant in the room' - the two princes whose very existence was the final obstacle to his plans - is absurd. Richard apologists always ignore the elephant in the room.
@@--legion Didn’t he have the princes declared illegitimate? If so, they were no threat to him.
The contemporaries didn't think Richard III was nasty until after the suspicious events in the chaos after Edward IV's death. He was actually the ideal, being steadfastly loyal to the king, an good commander/warrior that won in Scotland, and an effective administrator of the lands his brother gave him to manage. He didn't have a nasty reputation that preceded him like his brother George did. If he was always evil and plotting many of his choices during the Wars of the Roses wouldn't make sense. The whole mystery is about how Richard went from an English hero to the darkest villain. The decision to take power was obviously something he didn't plan until very late into the events when he thought it was the only logical course of action. The best conclusion for Richard was that he was a man of his time. This is supposedly bad because his predecessor and successor Edward IV and Henry VII were both similarly ahead of their time. Both of them were willing to compromise with their enemies if possible but Richard always wanted to ride out and destroy them. He had 0 tolerance for his enemies, especially Lancastrians, and this is consistent with his behavior during the early Wars of the Roses. One example of this is when Margaret Beaufort asks Richard if her son Henry Tudor could come back to England the night before Richard III's coronation and after a long talk he ends up saying no thereby turning her against him. Ironic as he spent the next 2 years hunting Henry Tudor in Europe!
I agree with you, I am not one of those people trying to restore his good name, as far as I'm concerned all the players here are nasty always doing anything to gain power, but they all seem to have one law pass the power to their family. Richard had fought his entire adult life so that the plantagenets would continue to rule, I will never believe that he would have killed his( other than his infant son) last remaining male relatives,I don't think so. I think the murders is a Tudor story and why should we believe them.
Just doesn't get better than this. Thank you.
I've become devoted to your website. And I look forward avidly to each new lecture. I curse the fools, knaves and cowards who insulted and smeared you. But at least, directly or indirectly, it has led to these wonderfully rich and enlightening lectures. Thank you so much.
I'm watching this while drinking tea off a Richard III coster with a Richard III cushion behind me
Where are you from?
@@johnbest4513 Originally from Leicestershire, I got them from the Richard III centre near Leicester cathedral before I got the train back to university a few weeks back.
@@Swift-mr5zi I see that makes more sense then. Cool stuff though. I want to visit where Edward I died in Cumbria and would like to visit the Richard III center as well.
@@johnbest4513 Its not very big but seeing the grave is worth it. It's both shocking and sobeing seeing it, from the most powerful man in the British Isles to then being strung up make naked in public and then buried hardly a foot deep by (probably) some French or Welsh mercenary.
From my reading on Richard III, I think he made a calculated move: either I go or my nephews do. So off they went. Of course, the irony is that eventually he went too...
I can understand Richard needing to eliminate his nephews as potential foci for opposition. However, there is no point in killing them and then leaving doubt that they are dead. Why did he not give them elaborate public funerals?
Which is a counter-argument for him not murdering the ex-princes. Truthfully, no one knows what happened to either boy. They disappear from memory after 1483 and, unlike their sisters, are not written of (to our knowledge) again. There is a Suffolk legend that the boys were living with their mother at one of the large houses in that county.
I do find it very hard to believe that Lady Grey (Elizabeth Woodville, the former queen) would have publicly reconciled with Richard in 1484 to the extent of trusting her daughters with him if she knew or suspected her boys were dead. Furthermore, Richard publicly swore to find good marriages for both girls and in 1484-5 was negotiating with the royal family of Portugal for Elizabeth (the daughter) to marry one of the princes, while he himself was to wed the Princess Joanna (a highly intelligent and religious woman, who would not have consented to marry a murderer as Richard is portrayed). Both marriages were agreed and were stopped only by Richard's death.
Now, the prospect of Richard marrying again, siring sons (remember his only surviving legitimate child died in 1484) and reestablishing the Yorkist dynasty meant that 1485 was a big, if not desperate gamble for the parties around Henry soi-disant, Earl of Richmond. Now or never.
Why did he not give them public funerals. Because then he would have to admit he killed them and even back then the murder of children was held in contempt. Those two boys were still threats no matter what
@@cherrytraveller5915 Why would he have to admit to killing them? Oh dear, poor souls died in their sleep or from the bloody flux etc.
Secretly murdering and burying the boys would have been the stupidest course of action because then (as happened historically) anyone could bring forward pretenders.
A public funeral states that the boys are dead and the public have seen their bodies lying in state AND buried by their mother.
@@cherrytraveller5915 It would have been easy enough to drug the princes and/or smother them in their sleep, then put put the story that the poor dears had died of fever.
The point of my comment is that dead princes do Richard no good unless their deaths are unequivocally public knowledge. Otherwise, they can be used as foci for rebellion.
There was enough doubt about the younger boy's demise for the Perkin Warbeck claim to be Richard duke of York to cause Henry VII an existentially serious problem.
There is something odd about the official story. I am not sure what it is.
David Starkey is just wonderful. We are fortunate to have this privilege to share in his knowledge and insight.
Outstanding content Professor! Thank you so much. Whoever was responsible for the cancellation should be sacked.
I’ve recently been watching David on Jamie’s Dream School. My admiration soars even higher if that’s possible. Absolutely brilliant!
Dr Starkey , I read recently that after Bosworth Henry brought a bill of Attainder against Richard to Parliament to legitimize his claim to the throne, yet with all the usual and expected accusations of cruelty and tyranny he never brings up the murders of the princes, surely a trump card. Can you tell me if this is true, it seems an unlikely omission considering his objective.
Thankyou.
M Mckever.
True. (There is only one possible explanation.)
We Love you and your talks, you make History live again. God bless from the Cheltenham 6.
This channel is very exciting for those of us who love history. We are truly blessed to have a hero such as David Starkey in our lives. I quiver with anticipation for the episodes to come. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I think the supposed "no show" of the aristocracy at Bosworth is something of a myth. It's hard to find a better turn out than for Richard anywhere in the period bar Towton. Of course some of them were mere spectators...
In contrast the only peers in Henry's army were long attainted nobles such as Uncle Jasper and the Earl of Oxford with his sidekick Viscount Beaumont, all of whom had been trailing around in exile for years. The day was won by Henry's continental pikemen and the treachery of William Stanley (for which much thanks from Henry), not the absence of Richard's peers.
I must say that I thought the image of Richard III as especially evil was just Tudor propaganda, but Dr Starkey's evidence that he was thought to have murdered the princes and been a bad person before the time of Henry VII has somewhat altered my views.
I’m glad David starkey is back he is great historian and titan in this field
I recently re-watched channel 4's "The Trial of King Richard III" in which you appeared as a witness for the prosecution. I must say you where withering towards the prosecutor, at one point I thought you where going to throw something at him.
DS has been around for quite a while, yet he still seems such a breath of fresh air. Always entertaining and informative, sometimes controversial (no bad thing).
Richard so pruned the Roses
they settled their difference to hedge him in:
"For a common enemy unites even the bitterest of foes." [Aristotle]
I’ll supp with the dark one to get rid of that man, W.S.C.
Richard became the Royal Protector to his nephews, that job is normally a death sentence as different court factions attempt to seize power. For Richard it was either kill or be killed, it might explain some of his choices/actions.
Especially with both Margaret Boefort & Elizabeth Woodville conspiring against him. I just wish we knew for sure, whether it was Richard that ordered those boys killed. Sure wish the new King would allow those bones they found in the Tower, & the remains of Edward the 4th to be DNA tested! And if those bones turn out to be the boys, they need to have an Honorable burial like Richard finally got! 🧐
This is exactly what I think. Plus I believe he feared the "Woodville " influence, and both the young King and the Duke of York were half-Woodville. It goes back to the controversy of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage. It enraged many of the important people in England as well as continental Europe. Once Elizabeth Woodville was installed as Queen, she secured prime positions and marriages for many of her family so they had a lot of influence. I've read she and Richard had had issues and I think Richard feared that she and her family could get Richard ousted as the Lord Protector of the young King. He may have worried about being exiled, properties and goods confiscated, and perhaps assassination. I think Richard III likely justified his actions by thinking he was preventing England from being destroyed by the Woodville faction, preventing civil war, and other disaster. If it meant the two boys had to die, so be it. This is what I believe happened.
Excellent as always. Thanks for taking the time to do these videos David !
I have never understood the Ricardian determination to whitewash Richard. I have never watched Shakespeare's play, having been massively put off by the clips of Sir Lawrence Olivier over-acting in the title role - so I don't think I'm unduly influenced by "Tudor historians". We don't discuss Shakespeare as a key influence on public perception of Julius Caesar, after all.
The recent discovery of Richard's bones seems to me to have implications for understanding Richard's character. As a result of his scoliosis, he was much shorter than he should have been, especially by comparison with his towering older brother Edward IV. Given his stature and "gracile arm bones", Richard must have had some difficulty developing the upper body strength required to wield knightly weapons. So he does deserve credit for his perseverance and military achievements. It also seems likely that his constricted chest caused him significant pain and difficulty in breathing and sleeping, especially in later years, including the night before Bosworth Field. I do wonder whether he was quietly jealous of Edward, who was so effortlessly successful in battle, with the ladies and at siring a large family. Not to same extent as their middle brother, George Duke of Clarence, who clearly went mad with envy, but enough to make Richard quietly loathe Queen Elizabeth Woodville and her "beautiful children", especially the princes. Richard is always portrayed as loyal to his brother, but he comes across as socially isolated and singularly lacking in charm. Few of his councillors appear to have liked him very much. His priggish disdain for the excesses of Edward's court may help to explain his notably unjust behaviour towards Edward's great friend Lord Hastings (his worst mistake?), the Queen's brother, Lord Rivers, and Prince Edward's devoted staff. Richard was quite happy to malign his redoutable mother and declare his brother and his nephews bastards in order to buttress his right to usurp the throne. I find the suggestions that the Princes were murdered on the orders of Lady Margaret Beaufort, the Duke of Buckingham, or the future Henry VII risible, due to lack of documentary evidence, character and/or lack of access to the Tower. Whatever happened to the Princes, it happened on Richard's watch, as did the earlier murder of Henry VI in the Tower. Attempting to distract attention by keeping totally silent about their fate, displaying very public religiosity and placating the public by passing crowrd-pleasing laws look like the actions of a hypocrite who was not at ease with his conscience. Overall, Richard comes across as a typical late 15th century, battle-hardened warlord, less bloody than some, but no model of a just or enlightened king.
I think two things are evident. One, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was not on the up-and-up: it was done in secret and it wasn't announced until four months after the fact. Two, the Woodvilles and certain councilors were attempting a coup, in order to undermine Edward's last will declaring Richard the Lord Protector. Some curiosities stick out, such as Anthony Woodville, Lord Rivers, proceeding to London in arms and quartering in Stony Stratford - which was much smaller than Northampton, and also closer to London. He had Edward V with him and it's clear he was trying to get to London to have young Edward crowned as soon as possible. When Richard took the king into his custody, the council turned half of the treasury funds over to Elizabeth Woodville's brother, the Lord Admiral, and he promptly took the funds to sea. Elizabeth was also given possession of the Great Seal for no good reason. Richard had his reasons to be wary. The previous two Lords Protector, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, and Richard's own father, the Duke of York, were executed during their time. Richard had witnessed the betrayals that led to, firstly, his brother's imprisonment, and, secondly, his brother's overthrow. Professor Starkey notes that the nobility of England sat on their hands as Henry Tudor and Richard fought at the Battle of Bosworth Field. I think most people are not brave, and they will accommodate themselves to whatever authority is in power. Plenty of England's nobles were willing to support Henry VI's rule despite him being clearly incapacitated and the whip hand being held by his ambitious wife (shades of Elizabeth Woodville, there). Both Richard II and Henry VI were executed surreptitiously by the regimes that overthrew them. Neither of these executions and usurpations led to widespread revolt. The Battle of Bosworth Field was won by the Stanley brothers, regular turncoats during the Wars of the Roses. Notably, William Stanley, the man whose men bashed Richard's head in, was executed by Henry VII. The entire period of the 15th Century featured recurring struggles for power. The two revolts under Richard's brief reign were spearheaded by dynasts, the Duke of Buckingham and Henry Tudor - both of whom were descendants of Edward III and had ostensible claims to the throne. What began with Richard II's execution, continued into the Tudor regime, with the executions of Edward, Earl of Warwick (grandson of the Kingmaker and the last direct-line male Plantagenet), sons of Edward IV's sister, the brothers de la Pole, and the Duke of Buckingham's son. The nobility of England, typical of political figures throughout the ages, hedged their bets and compromised in order to maintain their positions.
It was Thomas Stanley´s younger brother William who supposedly put the crown on H7 head. Yes, Henry was very grateful and executed him in 1495.
I think the ever-present Ricardians need to make occasional (or even a single) use of Occam's Razor when it comes to considering Richard III, his reign and his murder of his nephews. And, as you well know, Richard III's father wasn't executed. He died in battle during an attempt to overthrow his monarch because he hadn't the patience or loyalty to keep his side of a frankly astonishingly generous deal offered him by a king of who's feeble-mindedness he (and to be fair, others) had consistently and ruthlessly taken advantage.
@@kasimsultonfan According to Ocam' s razor it would definitely be H7. He needed the boys dead so he can be a king.
I agree more or less with everything, only Richard, Duke of York died in the battle. Richard II and Henry VI were killed, execution is a legal act which requires a trial.
@@kasimsultonfan Occam's Razor? The princes were illegitimised thus lawfully posed no threat to richards claim to the throne. Henry 7 repeals laws that reinstate the princes claim thus pose a direct threat to Henry.......
This channel is such a treat. Mr Starkey, you are a national treasure.
Once again my favourite part of these little talks is hearing what all the supporting actors got up to.
I would love to know how your average person...like say a villager...going about their daily business of getting enough food to eat, look after their family..do whatever job they might have...how did they even know what on earth the king was doing?... There were no newspapers or television etc to give people reports on what the nobility were up to...so how did people have any idea what the king for instance was doing?
Wasn’t there someone called a Town Cryer ? Hear ye. Hear ye . Hear ye . While ringing a bell to gather all around him in the town square and dispense his news . Otherwise, don’t know
@@mariapalmer5671 True...I suppose there was...Town Cryers I think though would of mainly serviced more populated areas and around the time we are talking I believe most folk lived in little hamlets and small villages. Plus also...who decided what the "Town Cryers" actually shouted out?... It could of just been paid propoganda from the wealthy nobility lot. But thank you for offering your kind reply to my question. It is appreciated 😁
People went to Church and the Pub where many things were discussed
It's called, "The Grapevine" and it is still up and running today...
I think Richard was/would have been an effective king under different circumstances - he showed real military ability, which as Dr Starkey has pointed out, was the crux of effective kingship at the time. And he certainly was ruthless enough. But the whole Ricardian argument is essentially an emotional spasm; history by sentimentality. This weird impulse which seems to grow with every year that no individual in history was actually all that bad, or did bad things. (Apart from the ones who did good things, who obviously were bad)
The Princes - a misnomer as one of them was a former king - posed a threat to Richard as long as they remained alive simply by virtue of who they were. Their claim was superior in blood to his, and the Titulus Regius could never deprive them of that status. What happened to Henry VI? What happened to Richard II? What happened to Edward II? All of these had been deprived of the crown and they all met the same fate. Why? Because in this period a former king is too dangerous to be allowed to live by their successor, no matter that their deposition has been ratified by current political reality and law. As Richard's whole reign shows, in the politics of the time those are transitory.
As it was, Richard was deposed by a French-backed fringe candidate for the throne. If Edward V or Richard - which is to say an actual king or his brother, proper royalty - had escaped captivity and a rebellion raised in their name? Without a doubt he would have been finished. Richard was far from an idiot and would have been all-too keenly aware of that given what he'd lived through.
I am so sick of hearing this Tudor myth about "the evil hunchback murderer of the poor nephews in the tower." I truly think he is somewhere down the middle of what the contemprary accounts were at the time and The White Queen's version of him. Not the devil incarnate nor a Saint. Just a man trying to do the best for his family and people.
A couple things about Richard III.
"I liked never the conditions of any prince so well as his; God hath sent him to us for the weal of us all..." - Thomas Langton, Bishop of St Davids.
"By contrast with kings before and after him, he indulged in no financial extortion, no religious persecution, no violation of sanctuary, no burning at the stake, no killing of women, no torture or starvation, and no cynical breach of promise, pardon or safe-conduct in order to entrap a subject." - Richard III The Maligned King Annette Carson.
"On hearing the news of Edward's death at Nottingham, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief."
"He showed his grief and displeasure and was not glad of the death of his queen, but as sorry and in heart as heavy as a man might be."
"Never has so much spirit or greater virtue reigned in such a small boy. As far as we can judge, Richard fulfilled his obligations and more, and for a medieval prince that was remarkable."
He wasn't the evil hunchbacked child murderer the Tudors and Shakespeare made people view him as...
Excellent, thanks David. I often wonder how these figures square their morality/fear of the afterlife (Hell) with acts like cold blooded murder. I'm sure he justified it in his head at the time.
Thank heavens for a real, erudite, historian. Mr. Olusoga, eat your heart out!
Thank you David. This is like being privileged to an intermate tea with a great intellect. Your cancellation has been the best thing that has happened to us.
Love these from David Starkey , great education for us.
Those dear, darling boys!
Always a joy to listen to you, so happy you have this TH-cam channel now!
What can one say? The content is fascinating and the delivery is sublime.
Great piece. Ideal length for TH-cam.
Dr Starkey , a brilliant historian.
always wonderful to hear DS thoughts on topics which ignite such discussion Thankyou for being here
Dr Starkey. I feel Richard was forced into his ruthless actions seeing his loyalty to his brother Edward pushed to the limit with Edward secretly marrying Elizabeth Woodville and the infiltration of the Woodville's /Grey's at court. Edwards desire to do what he wanted as opposed to his duty is obviously what pissed Warwick off as well. Richard I feel was never happy with his actions although he felt to save the crown from the Woodville/Grey influence he had to go through with such murderous deeds.
Loving this so much! David Starkey is one of my three favorite historians. I have signed books from two of them, I need one from David!
Back in the 80s (I think) Channel 4 broadcast “The Trial of Richard III” to examine the evidence against him regarding the “princes in the tower”. A real judge, jury and barristers with historians as the prosecution and defence witnesses. Really excellent - not least because our own Dr Starkey was a witness - and, let’s just say, he’s definitely mellowed with age! Very interesting & illuminating for anyone interested in Richard. You can find it here on YT if you search.
Just caught it. Having appreciated Starkey the contrarian up to now even I thought this was next level. “Burned “ I think is what it’s called. I have also been too hasty in criticising his lack of evidence against the Ricardian (my own) claims….but here it is and I’ve got another think coming! It’s why he’s the best.
I tend to think the Princes were like Beckett - certain supporters thought they were doing the king to be a favour by getting rid of an obstacle.
Interesting comparison. Only the princes weren´t killed.
Love history even more when you explain it.
I remember watching 'The Trial of Richard III' many years ago. You are much more likeable and cuddly now!.
I love your videos David. Thank you so much for taking the time to produce them for us all to see.
I've never understood why so many people believe that Richard III was innocent of the killings of the princes.
No proof.
@@melvincain5012 DM me. I've got a bridge to sell you.
@@davidmorris3981 Go on then whats the proof?
@@melvincain5012 Obviously after five-hundred years, there won't be evidence that would convict him in a court of law now. So you're asking for the impossible. But given that, R III had the motive and opportunity: No one else (realistically) could get near the princes. And it's obvious that Richard couldn't take the throne and leave the boys alive, boys who had such strong claims to the throne. He even murdered his erstwhile friend, Hastings, because he would have not tolerated Richard's usurption. And the other so-called suspects: Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham, aliens? No, as Professor Starkey said - Richard is 99.99999% certain to have ordered their murders.
@@davidmorris3981 Then why didn’t Henry VII shout about this after Bosworth? Why didn’t he order an enquiry as to goings on in the Tower in the previous two years when the personnel and records were right there? Because the Princes were still alive. Richard was looking after them and their sisters and cousins as the loyal Yorkist he had been his entire life.
Why did Henry act so suspiciously and illegally in the first weeks of his usurpation? Can’t believe the sainted Dr S can be so blindsided about Richard’s reign ; Richard 99.9999% did NOT harm or cause harm to those boys.
Fantastic stuff. Cheers Dave you little legend
Love your videos!!!
I am a happily married man, fully heterosexual, with a love of David Starkey. THIS is a true national treasure.
@@stickemuppunkitsthefunlovi4733 Not super straight at all.
I'm also #starkeysexual, not full gay.
Nice to see I opened up some public debate. David would be proud 👏
I have bought your tee-shirts undsoweiser for many people who will eventually understand and cherish them. good yule good doctor
I feel that royal families at this time were rather like the mafia.
One question, for which there can only be given an opinion.
Supposing Henry, either before or after Bosworth, had access to the Princes in the Tower, what would he have done?
Restore them to Kingship? or something else?
I'd say that it's 50/50 whether the princes were killed by agents of Richard or agents of Henry.
If the boys were still alive in the autumn of 1483, I think Richard would have brought them out in public to quell the rumours of their deaths.
@@CanadianMonarchist That would be very dangerous move. For the boys. It would be much easier for Richard to announce deaths of the boys from sweating sickness or whatever else and showed their bodies. If he had killed them. Everybody would be happy and moved on. The only reason why Richard didn´t show their dead bodies was that they were alive.
The Princes in the Tower are alive, one is flipping burgers in Wakefield Burger King, the other is a MBA student in Bolton Univercity
I so enjoy these talks. Please consider doing one on Henry VII!!
Langton is interesting.
Your earlier pseudo-courtroom drama as a witness casting doubt on the veracity of the Ricardian apologists away from Richard in the events post Edward IV was memorable.
Not sure he was innocent of the murder of Henry VI either. After returning from Tewkesbury I think there was evidence that Richard was present in the Tower on that fateful day too but I could be wrong.
Richard had been loyal to his brother at Barnet and Tewkesbury which makes his later volte-face more remarkable.
Someone else at Barnet and a remarkable survivor was deVere, the Earl of Oxford, a bit of an unreported figure and a remarkable survivor, often willing to go into the thick of it, escaping from Hammes and a major figure in the birth of the Tudors by being at the sharp-end at both Bosworth & Stoke fields.
"Loyalty binds me" Richard's soubriquet seemed to have deserted him from Edward and Hastings.
Much obliged for your lectures and details.
Isn't it accepted historically that when Richard was just Duke of Gloucester, he was the one who bludgeoned Henry VI to death whilst he was at prayer, probably onEdward's orders?
@@petah-peoplefortheendlesst4668 No it’s not.
@once a musician Sorry for the delay, just seen your post. 🙂
It was a programme on t.v. I think around the discovery of Richard's body and it was an old rcourt room drama that had previously done. The Ricardians were called to the dock to give evidence that Richard was innocent of crimes.
A younger Dr. Starkey came on and gave his well-reasoned prosecution that Richard is it guilty as charged.
He was his feisty self before he "mellowed".
Memorable.
I'm sure he may remember it and might help put it up or give you directions. I don't know if he has rights to it but he has put up an episode of the Churchills so he may have.
It is well worth seeing. He was on his combative brilliant form.
Thank you for your message. 🙂
@@petah-peoplefortheendlesst4668 Not sure. 🤔
Edward and Richard had only just returned from Tewkesbury where Edward of Westminster, the Prince of Wales, had been killed, possibly in cold blood and possibly by Clarence himself as it is surmised he was captured by Clarence's men.
Queen Margaret and the recently widowed Ann Neville were reportedly captured at a nearby Convent.
The Yorkists nearly had all their ducks-in-row.
Hard to have "smoking gun" evidence for a lot of things. Eye-witness accounts rare and may have been biased.
Apparently Henry did not die of melancholy as the Yorkist spin purported. He sadly died the same evening the Yorkist brothers returned to London. Whether a lieutenant did the deed or no is conjecture. It is said that there is record of Richard being in the Tower on the scene. It was in Edward's interest but did Richard or one of his henchmen do it?
A re-interment of Henry showed hair on his skull with evidence of blood.
Thank you for your interest.
@@user-np7dv2rx4c You are right I don't think you'll ever find "smoking-gun" evidence. One is left with motive, means and opportunity and it will inevitably through the unlikely existence of an eye-witness account remain a mystery.
You could say what happened to Edward of Westminster, the Prince of Wales at Tewkesbury? Was he murdered in cold blood after the battle by George Duke of Clarence's men or even by Clarence himself?
It is ironic that Edward Prince of Wales is buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Tewkesbury came under George Duke of Clarence's estates and his and his wife Lady Isabel Neville's skulls are buried in Tewkesbury Abbey.
It was in Edward's interest to tie up loose ends and the very same evening the Yorkists entered London Henry was murdered. It is recorded that Richard was the only one on the scene, not Edward. Whether he was responsible or had a henchmen do it it's unlikely hard evidence will emerge.
Thank you for your interest.
I love these lectures by David Starkey!
The problem people have with Richard is that they can't reconcile that he can do things like murder his nephews AND still have good qualities. So they either demonize or deify him, and neither is right. He was capable of great generosity and nobility, but also more than happy to use brutal, extrajudicial murder to achieve his aims.
"extrajudicial murder"? Like what?
@@blackcat2628zd I must ask, are you intentionally trying to antagonize me? Or are you genuinely curious about what Richard did?
@@louthegiantcookie I would like to know what you think that Richard did.
@@blackcat2628zd But are you asking because you want to know or because you disagree? Because I'm not going to trade insults with you.
@@louthegiantcookie How can I disagree with something I don´t know? So step 1: tell me what you think Richard did. Step 2: I will tell you if I agree or not, Step 3 We can discuss our standpoints. If I wanted to insult you, I´d do it already:-D.
Great analysis! We have people who were victims of fake news here in the US too. Keep up the good work 👍
Intriguing!🌟
Many thanks!
Crikey, surely the only person to gain from the princesses death is Henry VII, after he moved to legitimize all of Edwards children to marry Edwards daughter, didn't Henry systematically murder his way through the Plantagenets? I wouldn't trust the word of someone who ended up working for Henry either.
I only recently discovered your TH-cam channel Dr. Starkey. I’m a great admirer. Richard III is a fascinating character as are his times. What is your opinion on the evidence that his older brother Edward IV was possibly his half brother. There seems to be the strong possibility Edward IV was the result of an affair between his mother and another man and fathered by not Richards III father or Georges Richard of York. Is it possible Richard III was aware Edward IV was in fact illegitimate and so therefor were his sons? With older brother George dead, might Richard III have seen himself as the true and legitimate heir?
I want to know this too. Tony Robinson seemed quite convinced.
Another excellent lecture from the good Dr Starkey.
Somebody needs to sort out the sound synchronisation.
for all of Edward IV's extravagance it didn't negatively impact the realm. Rather than impoverish the kingdom as these kind of extravagant kings often do, instead his governership saw a massive increase of the general wealth in England as he pulled England out of debt and oversaw an explosion in education through both the introduction of the printing press and an increased royal support for various colleges and universities.
if any English king has been badly maligned by history its not Richard III, its Edward IV (as well as his Woodville in-laws)
I just adore the intro. Every time I raise my eyebrows too and giggle!
Thank you.👍
He doesn't mention that Prince Edmund accidently killed Richard III ...
there have been more king far worse than richard i cant beleive in some of the tudor or shakespeares take on richard but then again if richard had won art bosworth then history would have been quite different so thanks once again for your upload david if you ever come to leicestershire you will be welcome have subscribed to your channel bye for now avon leicestershire 2021
What wonderful takes
I love your channel and all of British history. Does your Members Only Club tolerate Americans? I am not a rude American.
"Everyone said so" - Are you referring to Mancini?
Dr Starkey 4 PM!
Excellent!
First, please let me tell you that I’m thrilled with this channel….. I devour everything of yours I find on the internet!
To me, it always seemed totally reasonable and logical that Richard III offed the princes and I’m not particularly shocked by it…….(although the fact that they were children is especially chilling)…….The act would also be consistent with the politics of the times. The Woodvilles were waiting in the wings to control the throne via the Woodville family’s connection to the heir….. I think it was a “us or them” choice for Richard. Pretty typical for those very bloody times.
Whatever happened to Michael Wood ? Superb presenter. Prof. Robert Bartlett is another that should have been used more by the TV. Instead we now have Dan Snow .... All these people would be great guests on this channel except Dan Snow
Dan snow couldn't hold a candle to Starkey or Wood...for that matter neither could Lucy worsdell or Kaye Williams for that matter!
I actually stumbled upon this channel because i have a great interest in wars of the roses. Initially i had no clue as to who
David Starkey was but to me he seemed very biased towards the Tudors from his videos, after researching who he was ( and some of his unsavoury comments) turns out I wasn't wrong.
I’ve read so many of your books! And I don’t even care about the Tudors all that much! You rock :)
What is 'great' about this TH-cam site is we can agree to disagree with Dr Starkey and no one is vicious or 'cancels' anyone. It's about hearing different viewpoints and the reasoning behind it. I still believe Henry VII killed the princes as it makes sense to me but I can still admire and stand in awe of Dr Starkey's knowledge.
Thank you for enlightening - my wonder. You have confirmed my knowledge as I did wonder why, and from who - the story came from that he could have been different.
Man of the People! Which sometimes may require tyrannical behaviours.
"He's very aware of morality"
His nephews: Are we a joke to you?
As a avid mustacher myself, I have to say; LET IT GROW.
Which side had the moral high ground during the Spanish Civil War?
That was a very interesting and brief overview of Richard III, last of the Plantagenet kings - so thank you for that David Starkey.
I saw a joke a few months ago about the finding of the remains of Richard III beneath a car park.
First archaeologist: 'Oh look at this! Richard III skeleton is in two different parking spaces!'
Second archaeologist: 'Indeed, his evil knew no bounds!'
Tudor Gold Corp. ad on this one. I wonder why
O.K. Richard the Third may have satisfied the expectations of the people up there in the north and he may even have been much loved by the populace there but this does not preclude his having committed the dastardly act of doing away with his nephews - there are so many historical parallels - Hitler for example - seems to have been much loved initially by the German public and had a reputation for getting things done and sorting out the mess of the Weimar republic. Napoleon too but this didn't preclude his doing away with the duc d'Enghien one of the remnants of the ancien Regime. Stalin is still adored in his native Georgia and Jenghis Khan is the great hero of the Mongolian people and has had a gigantic statue erected in Ulaan bator. Timur (Tamerlane to westerners) is estimated to have killed millions in India and other places but is an absolute hero in his native Uzbehkistan. Just because Richard was loved and admired by some of the people close to him proves nothing!
hello again david your words on richard i think were a little harsh but then again richard given a longer time as king i am sure would have done a lot of good his loss and also my leicestershires great loss by richard being betrayed and deposed that day is rather i think for us a very personal blow us in leicestershire will allways think good of him i dont beleive for one moment that those york boys were killed by richard but any way i think that your new youtube channel is very good yours again avon leicestershire 2021
I don't really understand why Richard III has so many fans. I'm American and I've never been to England, so maybe I'm too far removed from all of this but in my mind it's his actions that truly lead to the end of the Plantagenet dynasty. . He didn't have Edward V disinherited because he was so very deeply about the morality of the monarchy. He used that crap to justify his own ambitions, which mattered to him more than anything. Was he one of history's greatest monsters? Probably not. But to turn him into this poor, abused teddy bear who did nothing wrong to anyone is just such obvious bullshit.
E4 children were declared illegitimate by the parliament. They believed the evidence which bishop Stillington provided so who are we not to do the same? Probably you have a source proving legitimacy of Edward´s and Elizabeth´s marriage. I guess not because back then it was general knowledge that Edward had wife (Eleanor Talbot) before. And it was the representatives of parliament who offered Richard the crown. He took a couple of days to think about it. Situation especially in London was very chaotic and rule of another child king would be devastating.
@@blackcat2628zd Yeah, and I'm sure the members of Parliament who wanted Richard as king, because they were his buds and looking for ways to advance their own families, weren't just looking for a convenient reason to say "Edward's kids don't count, Richard is the clear choice for King." And if Edward and Elizabeth Woodville weren't really married, then why did Richard Neville get so pissed off about it that he completely switched sides. He was also trying to negotiate a marriage between Edward and one of the French king's relatives at the time he found out Edward got married behind his back. If Edward's precontract with Eleanor Talbot was recognized by anyone at the time of the Woodville marriage, then why didn't the Earl of Warwick consider it an impediment to his plans for Edward? Did he just sort of forget about it or what?
@@amyrat151 Richard didn´t have too many buds in Parliament. He spent his whole adult life as Governor of the North. Means he lived in the North, travelling to London rarely. He was very popular by his people. One of the reason why was because he had great sense of justice. Very often he decided in a favour of the poor against the rich. Also he didn´t accept any bribes. It´s clear that he wasn´t favourite of the powerful and rich. Yet they voted for him. Because it was the best solution and he was the best man for the job. But Richard remained the same honest and pious person, didn´t play their political games. For this he paid the ultimate price at Bosworth. Warwick was pissed for many reasons, the secret marriage (marriages, Eleanor might be not the only other one), he was very ambitious, losing his influence over Edward was very painful for him.
@@blackcat2628zd conveniently waiting 19 years to start scream illegitimate. Why is the fact that wanted rid of the Rivers family not occur to you as the reason why the nobles even went with that plan. They wanted rid of the upstarts. Oh wait you’re a Richard fan. Why am I wasting my time
@@cherrytraveller5915 Sorry, I don´t understand, some words are missing.
Keep up your good work and values DS and don’t let the bas##ds grind you down your are only hope 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
david i wish you a merry christmas and a safe new year stay well and safe see you soon thanks again yours avon leicestershire 2021 hope to hear from you soon avon
So, two princes disappear but two “pretenders” turn up?
Not only am I a fan of r3. But I think it's just as likely he didn't kill nephews. He moved them. Why didn't he produce them to silence rumors? Bc support cannot rally around those believed to be dead. There's evidence he did just that. Staff vanished. Bc he moved em. H confessed to everything but never that. And I think Henry 7th found out they were alive, and after presumably shitting his pants had them immediately killed. . Even if he DID kill them fine so what. He was better at it than a child for one and 2 he never intended to but was left with legit one choice which is to t ake throne and kill him due to the action ofgh woodvilles who were being super shady as well. Richard was a hero who was done wrong.
More please!
Why didn't Queen Elizabeth II attend the funeral ceremony of King Richard III? Why did she send her cousin Prince Richard of Gloucester to represent her and the royal family in this important event? Why the Queen didn't give gun salutes and RAF planes to King Richard? Can you tell us Professor David Starkey?
Traditionally, English/British monarchs did not attend the funerals of their predecessors. Furthermore, the late queen did not attend funerals which which might have appeared political or controversial. She, as you say, sent her cousin, who like RIII is a duke of Gloucester, which seems appropriate. I can't imagine what the reaction might have been to the queen's spending the money for a military salute of the kind you mention for a king dead hundreds of years, and about whom people have very strong opposing opinions.
Would love to hear your views and thoughts and truths on Elizabeth 1 love child. Enjoy your talks and knowledge.
With total respect to all, Richard Gloucester was just as good at playing the benevolent King, as he was the Ruthless, one. Yes. A man of his times: Needing to be seen Christ like or Pious as much as possible, but acting brutally when he believed he needed to.
As for the Princes, its anyone's guess, still. Richard is, at best, an even money favourite. But they only come in 50% of the time. Henry Tudor, Buckingham are 2/1 shots. Maybe 5/2, AT MOST. Because these are 2 men proven to be brimming with arrogance, political genius and a will to act. BOTH stood to gain much from there murder, or even capture.
Unfiltered vinegar is not without its charmes
I was wondering who made the obsevation that inspired the Richard III was a good bloke theory. !
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻