Another thought: Elizabeth, even if she did recognize her brother, was between a rock and a hard place, given her recognition could potentially compromise her husband and her sons' rights. Whether he was Perkin or Richard, he was doomed.
Yes I have thought that too. If Elizabeth did recognize Perkin as her brother Richard, it was better to give him money and smuggle him out of England, than another civil war which would put her sons in danger.
Yes, I’ve read similar ideas of Elizabeth’s possible motivation to keep quiet about Perkin being her brother. I’ve wondered if part of it was that her confirmation might also seal his fate.
@@scienceknitster Very true. Although, I think eventually Henry would have done him in anyway, just in case anyone might still think he was Richard and begin an uprising in his name. He and his son had a habit of executing Plantagenets.
@@msvaleriah : jakie,, everyone was related, being the plantagenets were originally french.... being that the links between france and england were close in * royal blood line.... King Edward III had several sons, the war of the roses, was like a * close and distant cousins war*,King Henry VII married a cousin* Queen Elizabeth of York... also Henry mother, Magaret Countess of Richmond, too had a habit of marrying , for political reasons,,,,her cousins, all were related closely or distantly too... edward III as for the Pretenders. and their ROYAL SUPPORTERS, a holy roman emperor-archduke of austria king of hungary -bohemia etc, a yorkist duchess of burgundy, a scottish stuart king.., archbishop of meath, earls in ireland... yes King Henry VII, would have been looking over his shoulder , even in wales, as the yorkists, common Yorkist* ancestor ralph mortimer : married a gwenllian * princess of the welsh *.... under medieval welsh law, females could inherit..., under medieval english law females could not inherit... Edward IV had significant support in south wales , many noble familes like herberts, morgans of tredegar were yorkists, they also gave edmund and jasper tudor trouble, they also claimed the tudors had little or no claim to * prince of wales* , just Prince of gwynedd or the north of wales... let alone wholehearted * welsh support*....
She flies under the radar because of her gentle, easy going disposition. But she had a fascinating, often traumatic life. Which I think pushed her towards becoming a peace keeper. Elizabeth would be a great subject for Dr Kat.🙂
@@leonieromanes7265 Agreed, we know very little about Elizabeth. She tended to stay out of the goings on of the Court. Her mother-in-law Margaret Beaufort played a more active role. All we roughly know about Elizabeth is that she was beautiful, religious, charitable and loved by the people
My father, who fought in WWII, was telling me about his experience at the D-day invasion. I asked questions based upon my reading. At one point, he looked up at me and quietly said, "Honey, at that point we didn't know that we would win." That sentence changed my perspective dramatically.
For many years my Mum told us humorous stories about their lives in Southampton during the war. One day I said - Mum - was it always that funny? She answered - we were absolutely terrified every day for 6 years. I still cry when I remember that.
@@mandylavida my Grandad was an ARP warden in Portsmouth, he and my Nan would tell stories of what happened. But, my Grandad kept quiet about what he had to do after the bombings. It once said it was hard to see houses of friends/family reduced to a pile of rubble knowing that they were in there somewhere. He may not of said much vocally but his face spoke volumes.
Another reason Lambert Simnel was allowed to live while Perkin Warbeck died could very well be that Simnel was still a child being used as a pawn by the grown ups around him, and thus executing him would’ve been a bad look for Henry, while Warbeck was a grown man and an active, knowing participant in his deceptions, and thus a viable target.
Even if Elizabeth did know he was her brother, she couldn't have done anything without jeopardizing her own standing as well as her children. Margaret Beaufort pretty much controlled the palace, doing everything she could in outside of what was required by the queen. If Elizabeth recognized one of them as her brother and helped him make his claim, overthrow Henry or helped him escape, her children could have been taken away from her and she could have spent the rest of her life in the Tower. If Henry had won in the end, he would have killed her brother and stripped her entire family of land, money, titles, everything. If Henry lost, her children would have lost their father. She was in a no-win situation. She couldn't have said anything.
I don’t think Henry ever stopped looking over his shoulder I’m sure that is why he was careful with money, not only for financial security but potentially to have funds to pay an army if there was insurrection I’m sure too it was a comfort to have his mother - such a strong woman - with him through his reign She died 2 months after him, no doubt just long enough to see Henry Vlll in place
Henry Tudor was a journal writer, according to Polydor Vergil. I keep hoping that one of them turns up next time there's a renovation at Windsor, where he had a secret room built, as a private study. He spent much of his early life in semi-captivity, and being alone may have been a necessity at times. As an aside, though, Dr. Kat, Henry Tudor went from Earl to King, any ducal title he may have had would have been after he was King.
I always appreciate how compassionately you talk about the imprisonment and deaths of these historic people. It would be easy to dehumanize them and only think of them as characters in stories (especially given how their lives have been fictionalized and dramatized over the years). You always make me realize that these were people with hopes, dreams, and fears.
Such and interesting video on the pretenders who challenged Henry the 7th. Would you consider doing a video on the Stuart pretenders who wanted the British throne?
I’m not going to speculate on anyone’s pregnancy status, but wouldn’t it be interesting if she was pregnant again. It happened to my best friend about the same time after her first 😅
With Elizabeth of York possibly being able to determine whether Perkin Warbeck was her brother or not, even if she could, would it matter? She didn't have power in her own right and if he was her brother he would serve as a threat to her children and their futures.
I think it was easier for Henry VII to allow Simnel to live because he knew he had the real Edward of Warwick in his possession. He might not have had that kind of security with Perkin.
....he believed he had the real Edward. Or he wanted to believe it? Anyway Edward wasn´t extreme threat since he was barred from the throne beccause of Clarence's attainder.
@@blackcat2628zd Which could have been revered by an act of parliment. There's legality and what is actually done in practice. Edward IV and Elizabeth's children were illegitimaized by one reign and relegitimized by another.
I’m glad Henry VII didn’t sleep well, because of the Pretenders. His pre-dating his accession to the day before Bosworth was a low and nasty move, enabling him to kill and seize the assets of those who had fought for Richard III, who rightly or wrongly, was the acknowledged King. I never thought he had any real claim to the throne, but marrying Elizabeth of York did give his descendants some legitimacy.
The Prince by Machiavelli. You'll understand everything Henry did, except you may wonder why he didn't kill more people. He was a pretty mild version, and he was successful.
Exactly. I hate H7 for many reasons but the pre-dating is the worst. Also he wasn´t exactly brave, sitting on his horse watching the brave guys fighting.
I think the disparity in treatment of the two pretenders also has to do with the veracity of the claim being pressed. Pretending to be the son of Clarence is one thing, but pretending to be Edward IV’s son is quite another.
@@leticiagarcia9025 @Leticia Garcia Very good points. Still, the failure of the RF to have any transparency about this just confirms for me their tolerance of serious child abuse in defense of "The Crown". I can tolerate a lot of things (e.g., bad hair days, chronic pain, jerks), but not child abuse/murder.
Personally, I believe there are a variety of plausible reasons why Henry VII dealt with Warbeck in such a vastly different way to Simnel. Firstly, Simnel was, simply put, a boy when he was conditioned into becoming a Yorkist figurehead for the throne, John de la Pole was certainly the "brains behind the operation", if you like. In contrast, Warbeck was older than Simnel and therefore acting more of his own accord, yes he was influenced by others very much (e.g.: Margaret of Burgundy and, as you said, Charles VIII). However, Henry VII did initially deal with Warbeck in what I view as a pretty nice way to deal with someone who has been a persistent thorn in your side for about 5 years! He allowed him to stay at court and only after his escape attempts did Henry deal with him more harshly and then again he didn't actually order his execution until Warbeck attempted yet another escape attempt. Certainly, the biggest reason for the vastly different treatment of the pretenders seems to have been Warbeck's uncanny ability to gain foreign support consistently - he was picking it up all over Europe and Henry's inability to deal with the Warbeck threat for years also affected his foreign policy in that Ferdinand of Spain refused to approve the marriage of Prince Arthur and Katherine of Aragon until Henry could deal with the threat posed by Warbeck. This was a brilliant video by the way, I watched it as a bit of revision for my A-level Tudor history course! :)
Agree about Henry's lack of blood-thirstiness. Very slow to drop the blade on enemies. He'd rather fine them. I get that. The crown was not solvent. The one time he was hasty was Catesby being executed two days after the battle. The reason has never been fully resolved, unless it was about the summary execution of Hastings, which Catesby had a very low part in. Many mysteries. Cheers.
I just can’t see Perkin Warbeck realistically being Richard of York and this information not being revealed much earlier. I also doubt Elizabeth Woodville would’ve betrothed her daughter Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor knowing that her son Richard was safe and would one day come to reclaim the throne. I believe Henry was much harsher with Perkin as he wasn’t an innocent child being coached into his role the way Lambert was and also because Lambert was a commoner whose ruse would’ve likely been figured out by any skeptics whereas Perkin supposedly came from at least a merchant class background and had enough education to make his ruse more believable. I also think it was much easier to forgive a pretender to the throne the first time around, especially as you said, Henry could produce the real Warrick. It may have also been Warrick’s father being executed for treason that could’ve also led to more leniency since George, the duke of Clarence hadn’t been king and had in fact been branded a traitor. Whereas the real Richard of York could not be produced or definitively ascertained and his father was in fact King, plus any claims of his supposed illegitimacy would’ve hurt Elizabeth of York’s claim to the throne as well. I think with Perkin being the second pretender, being much older, and the further addition of the support of James IV (probably even further heightened by Henry’s ongoing war with Scotland) along with that of Maximilian I as Lambert didn’t have as much or as prominent formal support.
Warbeck was a man with a noble Scottish wife and a son. Even in custody, he was possibly an attractive option for disaffected courtiers. Siminel had been a child, set up by adults who manipulated everything and could do nothing on his own. I think this is the principle reason in why Henry VII treated them so differently.
Part of me, the romantic, wants both of the boys to be the princes. The realistic person acknowledges the fact that powerful men and women wanted someone they could control on the throne.
I think Henry VII used the trumped-up “conspiracy” with the Earl of Warwick to execute Warwick, the real threat. So, Perkin Warbecque had to die, also. The Spanish marriage wouldn’t have gone forward with someone with as strong a claim to the throne as Warwick left alive.
Just a few odd facts if Perkin Warbeck was indeed a Dutch peasant. He spoke perfect English, no accent, as well as several other languages fluently, as well as being able to read and write them. He was very well educated for the son of a boatman. When he was in Holland he had to be sent to a special ‘English school’ to learn Dutch. Odd for a native Dutch speaker. The King of Scotland married him to a member of his family. He looked almost identical to Edward IV and was very tall. Was said ‘to be very like Edward’. He had the droopy eyelid recessive in the Plantagenet line, shared by Henry III and Edward I. He was gifted musically, as had been the prince. When he was taken out to be executed, Henry VII had his face smashed to a pulp so no one could see the striking resemblance to Edward IV. The fact needs to be emphasized that he was buried at Austin Friars, a cemetery reserved for the nobility. Another oddity for a purported Dutch peasant. Here are a few others buried there: Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford Sir Philip le Despenser Edward of Angoulême Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel Lucia Visconti Sir John Tyrrell Sir James Tyrrell Sir Thomas Cooke William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley Maurice Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford There is a room in the Ducal Palace at Bruges called to this day ‘Richard’s room.’ If they were looking for an impostor, it would be almost astronomically impossible to find such a perfect one.
I do wonder though, what was Elizabeth of York's stand on the situation with Perkin Warbeck? Is there any written or verbal proof or her approval / disapproval of what went down?
We know very little about Elizabeth really. We don't know what she said or thought. She stayed away from matters of the Court. Her mother-in-law Margaret Beaufort played a more active role. All we roughly know about Elizabeth is that she was beautiful, religious, charitable and loved by the people
I think Henry VII intended to show mercy as he did with Lambert Simnel, but the plot with Warwick was like a final straw. Just too risky to let either live. It's interesting that Warbeck's widow was a favoured lady in waiting and proves that neither Henry VII nor Elizabeth of York were vengeful people.
And possibly proved he was not a pretender, but a brother they were forced to kill. Honestly, making Elizabeth responsible for killing her brother or condemning her children was such a despicable thing to force her to do (likely at the at least implicit threat of killing her entire family), and I think likely the idea of the lovely 'Lady Mother'.
We visited the Falkland Palace a couple of years ago. I felt then that a lot of history had been hidden, as monarchs were shown to have lived in or visited the palace. Quite a revelation.
If I were Elizabeth of York, I might not think it's a good idea to tell Henry VII whether I think that's my long-lost brother or not. Indeed, it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck was in fact Richard of Gloucester--at least, if you look at a picture of him and Edward IV side by side, there's a distinct resemblance. . They have exactly the same mouth and chin, and the tips of their noses are rather similar. Perkin Warbeck's eyes and eyebrows are also remarkably similar to those in portraits of Elizabeth Woodville. And there's further a distinct possible that Henry VII executed Perkin Warbeck for fear that he was in fact Richard of Gloucester--or possibly even _knowing_ that he was.
Thank you thank you!! I still imagine ( but not believe) that Perkin Warbeck was indeed Richard. It’s like believing that the Man in the Iron Mask was Louis XIV’s secret twin. It’s the mystery that sustains
That first story gives me vibes of being an inspiration for GRRM's (F)Aegon plotline in his bookes, swapped child, boy being groomed to act a king... but with a mix of Perkin Warbeck with the original baby being/thought dead.
I was thinking that, myself. Was it simply that Simnel proved himself more trustworthy or true to his word? Seems to me, the royal court was rife with informants and it would have been possible to keep people under close observation. Perhaps, while Warbeck kept trying to run (suggesting he still had supporters recognizing him as "Richard"?), his wife and Simnel were willing to accept a "gilded cage" until they had proved themselves sufficiently. Also, anyone else notice a "three strikes: you're out" sorta vibe to Warbeck's situation? (Ah my sense of humour)
My personal belief is that 'Perkin' was exactly who he said he was. Just a few odd facts if Perkin Warbeck was indeed a Dutch peasant: He spoke perfect English, no accent, as well as several other languages fluently as well as being able to read and write them. He was very well educated for the son of a boatman. When he was in Holland he had to be sent to a special ‘English school’ to learn Dutch. Odd for a native Dutch speaker. The King of Scotland married him to a member of his family. He looked almost identical to Edward IV and was very tall. Was said ‘to be very like Edward in looks and manner.' He had the droopy eyelid recessive in the Plantagenet line, shared by Henry III and Edward I. He was gifted musically, as had been the prince. When he was taken out to be executed, Henry VII had his face smashed to a pulp so no one could see the striking resemblance to Edward IV. He was buried at Austin Friars, a cemetery reserved for the nobility. Another oddity for a purported Dutch peasant. Here are a few others buried there: Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford Sir Philip le Despenser Edward of Angoulême Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel Lucia Visconti Sir John Tyrrell Sir James Tyrrell Sir Thomas Cooke William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley Maurice Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Herford John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford There is a room in the Ducal Palace at Bruges called to this day ‘Richard’s room.’ If they were looking for an impostor, it would be almost astronomically impossible to find such a perfect one.
Thank you Dr. Kat! Love your videos. You are an inspiration. Forgive me if you've already covered these topics, but I would love to see a video on architecture - Wren, Nash, Inigo Jones, etc. thanks!
What we know of Elizabeth is that she was beautiful, religious, charitable and loved by the people. Yes she was kind to Perkins wife and to a young Catherine of Aragon too. A good woman and Queen
If I had to guess as to why Lambert Simbeau (sp?) was spared, it would have been because he was a child. And as such, he likely would have been told by his parents or other important figures that he had to go along with the ruse. I think the adults around him would be the power behind the throne, and he would be a figurehead. Perkin Warbeck on the other hand was an adult, and had full control over his own decisions and was treated as an adult in Henry VII’s eyes.
Perkin Warbeck confessed under torture, so who knows where the truth lies. The Important detail is Henry VII won. I suspect not killing Simnel was a PR thing as he was only a child and couldn't be seen as anything other than a pawn - points to Henry for not going what others would have (I'm not a fan of Henry Tudor btw). My favourite, although probably most awful, reference to Perkin Warbeck is in Maid Marion and her Merry Men - King John uses Warbeck Torture Machines - by Appointment to Royalty.
Excellent video as always. Great point about Elizabeth of York would have been able to determine if this was her brother through shared knowledge as siblings. The same would also be true for her sisters, particularly Cecily and Anne who I assume would have been at court from time to time and would have been closer in age to Richard. The two younger sisters might have been too young to remember him.
I've no doubt, that if Elizabeth DiD meet him, even if she wouldn't recognise him, he, at least, would of brought up shared memories of their life together. That's if he was indeed, Richard.
Will you do a video on Thomas Wyatt? He never gets enough coverage for who he was, what he was about and his possible connection to Anne. Whenever I read his poetry it was beyond brave and he escaped the block while so many didn’t. His survivors guilt must have been so very intense. I wish I’d have known him x
I will be sharing this video with my family. Through doing my genealogy, I actually discovered our family's descent from Margaret Plantagenet through her daughter Ursula Pole.
Something I cannot understand is the horrible critical attitude towards Henry VII., who as far as he could showed mercy to all the pretenders until their threat became too great to overlook by attempting to escape, together with the Earl of Warwick. Whereas nobody seems to criticise the yorkists who were cynically using an 11 year old boy to try to garner support. He and Warbeck would have been summarily dumped if their attempts to unseat Henry VII had succeeded.
please do a video about DUCHESS CECILY* OF YORK... What must she have thought with her husband killed and all 3 of her royal sons dead.,after bosworth......, then a distant relative son becoming king and her grandaughter Elizabeth becoming queen, then her great grandson prince arthur being born ? her daughter * Duchess magaret supporting any and all pretenders from burgundy*, also a video about DUCHESS MAGARET OF YORK*... its almost unmentioned the * european dimension* to english history, its forgotten and being that for a time the King of Scotland supported Perkin Warbek...
I want to know if we can examine the remains of the ‘princes in the tower’ and see if they are indeed the murdered York boys. Similarly, could we not also check the remains of the Pretenders and Edward Plantagenet? Bodies are analyzed all the time to examine DNA, cause of death, age at the time of death, etc.
During the reign of Charles II some bones were found in the rubble of an excavation at the Tower. They were immediately declared to be the two princes. They were found 18 inches away from an old Roman graveyard. Charles was at the time facing some internal decension and made a big deal out of it as an example of what could happen if a rightful king was deposed. They were examined in the 1930's. The sex of the bones has never been determined, and there are discrepancies galore regarding the measurements of the bones, etc. Residing in the urn at Westminster Abbey, along with the bones, are rusty nails and chicken bones. No DNA has been done on them, Queen Elizabeth would not allow it. Perhaps Charles will.
I'm curious about why they brought him and his wife into the royal household. They had favoured positions and seems odd that someone without usual connections would get that. Is it a case of keeping enemies closer?
I think it is. Keeping both Simnel in the kitchens would prevent outside Yorkist groups from using him again but also a form of confinement for the lad in case further conspiracies developed and Simnel might be a source for intel for Henry. As Simnel served in the kitchens and later became a Falconer, he proved his loyalty to the Tudor household and died a natural death. Likewise, by keeping Warbeque close, that prevented outside conspiracies to form armies and plans...any plans would be intercepted presumably by Henry’s household. I think it also bought Henry time to get as much information as possible as to which players were really backing the Pretender. By keeping Warbeque in his household, it was also a big message to Burgundy, Scotland, and the Holy Roman Empire to back off with their maneuvering. Warbeque was just as much a pawn for their ends as any Yorkist dream. And if Warbeque was a pawn for the Yorkists, he would also presumably be a weak Monarch for England as well because he was in debt to the people who “supported” him. If people thought Tudor had no claim to the throne, eventually the truth that Warbeque was really a nobody would leak out too, undermining the whole monarchy. I think Warbeque was doomed from the start it was a matter of time. Eventually the Yorkists and Poles would find a way to dump him as soon as possible even if he was crowned King.
Thank you for the excellent video. I do think the 2 children's bodies should be examined because this is a possible cold case. Videos on Saint Nicholas Owen and Catherine de Medici would be so interesting
I had never thought of Perkin Warbeck's execution as something to do with the marriage of Arthur and Catherine... it does give Mary I's execution of Lady Jane Grey (to help secure her marriage to Philip II) a strange sense of foreboding if that was the case
Henry VII was, ironically, himself a pretender, having no legitimate claim to the throne. The difference is that he won his big battle and the Wars of the Roses had killed off many legitimate heirs.
Still living in an age when might is right. Henry vii must have spent his life looking over his shoulder. Giving England an entire reign of peace must have made Henry viii much easier to accept.
Pretender in this context actually doesn't mean someone who is pretending to be someone he's not, but merely the term for another contestant to the throne. Sure, in today's general understanding, this term implies deceit of some form or other, but in this case, it's a neural term that could be applied to both a make-believer as well as someone who had a legitimate claim. So yes, Henry was a pretender to Richard III's crown despite being exactly who he claimed to be, simply because he contested Richard's claim. I guess what you really meant was that Henry was a usurper. One could see it that way, but in case of 'right to rule by conquest' that can be argued.
@@JayArgonauts yes, he had no legitimate claim to the throne but several kings before him were the same. He still lived in an age where might was right. In the context of the time, he can’t really be criticised for that. Richard iii had no claim to the throne either, yet somehow he magicked his nephews away and claimed it all the same.
I think it’s too simplistic to suggest Elizabeth of York would’ve publicly or officially recognised her brother, if that is who perkin was. The titular Regis that declared Edward IV’s children illegitimate was repealed by Henry, legitimising Elizabeth of York, but also her kissing brothers. This would give them a stronger claim to the throne. As the wife of her brothers enemy, with her own heirs future and her position as queen- (ie the first subject of her husband and law bound to obey him), she could never have gone on record to acknowledge him as her brother, even if he really was, because of position as Henry’s queen. That’s my opinion anyway
Quite possibly. It would also account for why 'Perkin', a supposed Dutch peasant, was buried in Austin Friars, reserved for the high nobility for centuries. I see Elizabeth's hand it that.
Thank you dr Kat. Brilliant as usual and the captions 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍. Thank you. I’ve always been in two minds about perkin war beck. Was he, wasn’t he? I didn’t think Elizabeth of York ever met him. Am I wrong there? I thought Henry kept her away. I guess no one will ever know and that’s what makes it such a good story. Also, most ‘stories’ of the boys in the tower only came out during the Tudor reign . That’s always been a bit Suss to me. Hope the family are well . Thanks once again. I so look forward to Friday evenings. 🙏🙏🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
I always get in trouble for saying something ignorant when I comment about this general subject. I don't know what I believe but an awful lot revolves around the princes in the tower. Who knew what, and when, way back at the beginning? I too have made points about the various pretenders apparently not being recognized by family. Yet it is recorded that the household of Elizabeth Woodville was close and family was revered. If any of the pretenders were princes, I would think they would have had memories and been recognized by the many members of the family. (I would also expect a true prince to have quickly had a fatal accident during the reign of Henry VII. I am not a complete romanticist.) The bottom line is, the disappearance of the princes in the tower caused lots of grief for many. Though I am not a big fan of Occam's Razor, it seems there must be a simpler explanation that became complex through various conspiracies. I don't even think the princes were murdered. Richard had declared them bastards and assumed the throne. Those who know more than me claim that bastardizing the boys made them unimportant. (Unless of course uprisings would use them for regime change.) IMO, the princes died of natural causes. There was some indication that Edward was ill before the disappearance. IMO, it was King Richard's choice to quietly bury or dispose of the remains. Conspiracy theories grew. We can see similar in a couple modern crimes; the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, and the 9/11 disaster in 2001. Kennedy is simpler since the strongest evidence at this time is that Lee Harvey Oswald, a misfit and mentally ill man, acted alone. To make the point, let's say he did. All sorts of peculiar bits and pieces seem to define a huge conspiracy but the pieces are actually a string of reactions ranging from FBI's J. Edgar Hoover basically lying to the Warren Commission to honest bystanders who thought shots came from the "grassy knoll". The ultimate misstep was when mentally distraught Jack Ruby fatally shot Oswald.
So much information I've got to watch it again! Sometimes I take notes. I really enjoy English history b/c of my ancestry and love of Shakespeare and all the other great British writers, so many whom are women!!!
I think I think that Simnel was smart enough to find loyalty to the King's household, whereas Warbeck's escape attempts doomed him. I also wouldn't be surprised if the latter's wife betrayed the plot herself. I mean, she married a prince, only to find out it was a cloth merchant. I'd be rather upset if I were in her shoes.
Agreed. Had Warbeck's attempt been successul, he could have kept being a thorn in the side. Plus, Henry might have been miffed by Warbeck turning out such an ingrate, when he easily could have been executed right away.
Another reason Lambert Simnel was allowed to live while Perkin Warbeck died could very well be that Simnel was still a child being used as a pawn by the grown ups around him, and thus executing him would’ve been a bad look for Henry, while Warbeck was a grown man and an active, knowing participant in his deceptions, and thus a viable target.
As always, enjoyed your video very much. Had Warbeck taken the throne, I wonder what the royal family would look like now. One change in history would make huge changes in the present.
I really enjoy your videos, Dr Kat! They are well written, clear and easy to follow and always interesting. I wonder, too, why Elizabeth of York did not support Perkin Warbeck. I think that she was caught between "a rock and a hard place" - supporting Warbeck as her brother meant abondoning her son Arthur - potentially setting up another War of the Roses - but very possibly, at some point, leading to Arthur's death. So who to choose - someone who might be her brother or her son? I am pretty sure Elizabeth never met with Warbeck - so that way she was able to have deniability and not have to sacrifice her son and his inheritance to someone who may not be her brother. A horrible choice.
I always thought Henry Tudor was tolerant of Lambert Simeneau (sic) because he had the real Edward in the Tower. I also think he was spared because at 11 it was obvious the child had nothing to do with the plot. I think Henry knew the whereabouts of the remains of the real Richard, but could not produce them, as this would untarnish (at the least) the legacy of Richard III. Not saying Henry, or his mother, killed the princes, but I do think Henry VII knew the whereabouts of their remains. Thus he could be certain, even if no one else was, that Perkin Warbeck was NOT the late Duke of York. Since Warbeck was an active participant in this plot and had two escape attempts keeping him alive would be a huge liability. Plus there is the Spanish demand the crown be secure before the marriage between Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, eliminating Warbeck and the real Warwick were necessary.
Thank you for the discussion the pretenders to Henry VII's throne. I had seen a TH-cam discussion recently that implied that Perkin Warbeck was actually one of the Princes in the Tower who had somehow escaped. There do seem to have been an awful lot of Plantagenets, like Margaret of Burgundy, still around to to give Henry headaches! I recently discovered the identity of my birth father, and research took me to early colonial New England. A couple of my ancestors have interesting tie-ins to English history that I'd like to know more about. One was apparently shipped to Massachusetts after taking part in the Monmouth Rebellion. Another had come to Massachusetts, married and had daughters. However, after his wife's death, he put the girls in care of relatives and returned to England to fight with the Parliamentarians. He was wounded at the Battle of Nasby. He married the woman who nursed him back to health and brought her back to America. Yet another fled after taking part in the Battle of Dunbar. Other ancestors were Scots who went to Ulster before coming to America. I hope that in the future you will discuss one or a couple of these topics.
Could "Perkin" truly have been Richard?? Surely if Elizabeth did acknowledge Him, as Richard.. wouldn't She be putting Her own Children's hereditary claim's at risk?
It was historical fiction but a good show. So was the preceding series The White Queen. I'm sure they inspired many people to do some factual research afterwards
I can't see Henry or Elizabeth giving up everything that they had been through to build a new dynasty just so Elizabeth's younger sibling (that she hadn't seen in years) could destroy it all and take the throne.
I have no idea what the eff was going on. Edward and his brother Richard were most likely murdered in the Tower by Richard III but there’s just so many things in that story that don’t add up. Whether that’s because we simply don’t have enough of the details, or because everyone at the time was just being weird, or both, I don’t know.
@16:34 - To play devil’s advocate, maybe Elizabeth of York DID recognize him and that’s why he had to be killed. 😳 (I know this is the historical fiction aspect you spoke of but it does make for good fiction lol)
Even though I’m generally yorkist, it’s so incredibly unlikely that perkin warbeck was in fact Prince Richard. That said, I do enjoy his portrayal as such in historical fiction because, well, it’s just entertaining isn’t it! I guess it was simply his adulthood that made Henry treat him as a significant threat. It’s also possible he really did bear an uncanny resemblance to the Plantagenet boys although for the amount of people that would ever see him with their own eyes this probably wouldn’t have mattered.
I don´t see being executed at young age entertaining. I believe that the boy was Richard, duke of York. Not only because of his appearance but all facts, rumours and Henry´s utter panic point this direction.
Essex House -- especially earl of essex's wife (Daughter of Frances Walsingham, widow of Philip Sidney, and his older sister, Penelope Devereaux Rich...
I'm not sure if Elizabeth of York would've admitted it was her brother. Yes "The White Queen" was not based on historical accounts but more of how Phillipa Gregory had seen the conspiracy theories played out. However, as a mother, her desire to protect her children would've been of greater concern. If I had been in Elizabeth's shoes, I would've claimed him as an imposter as well to protect my own children. I wish more was known of her disposition, and of her character.
Phillippa Gregory writes great fiction… making Margaret the murderer of the princes was such a better storyline that Shakespeare’s tired old account. The Tower was the most fortified building of it’s time, and if the boys were allowed to live Richard would have another civil war to deal with. Richard had the True Crime holy trinity… means… motive and opportunity… However, none of that even matters, Henry VII faced Richard III on a field of battle and won… Like William the Conqueror did, like Henry Bolingbrook did, and like Edward IV did. Richard III was the usurper not Henry VII.
Hurray - always glad to see our videos. I don't know if it's a stupid question, but was wondering why, if the wars are fought between the house of York and Lancaster, the king is placed in London and not the North of England?
So, what do I think? I don't really know. - Sure we've got the historical records which all seem to point to the two pretenders being imposters, however, the question is, can we trust these records unconditionally? I have my doubts. It's a case of 'the winner takes it all', and with that, seeing that for Henry and his newly founded dynasty it was vital to have everyone believe those two to be imposters they could've been who they claimed to be after all - or perhaps not. Who knows? But with that being said, as with so many things, something doesn't quite seem to add up. There are just too many things that seem very odd and which make me pause: 1. Would Margaret really have supported two imposters, one of them but a young boy whose reign would've caused serious problems, when there was an adult Yorkist claimant to the throne in England in the person of John de la Pole? - Rather unlikely. 2. Would John de la Pole have supported an imposter and with that risk everything? - I doubt it. 3. How does Warbeck supposedly being in Ireland as silk merchant fit in with him being already supported by Maximilian? - No idea. 4. Did Simnel really claim to be Edward, Earl of Warwick or could he have claimed to be Edward V, now that he would've been legitimate again? In that case, Henry could've spread false information about whom this boy claimed to be in order to mark him out as an imposter by publicly showing the boy in his custody, Edward, Earl of Warwick and mocking the boy who would be known from then on as Lambert Simnel. So who of the two Edwards was it even supposed to be? - Again, I haven't got the foggiest. 5. On that sideline, it is interesting to note that 1487, when Simnel appears on the scene, is the same year Elizabeth Woodville is ordered to retire to Bermondsey Abbey. Coincidence? - Perhaps, but interesting regardless. 6. Was Elizabeth of York even allowed to meet Warbeck, or was she kept away from him? - Her brother Richard had grown up in the same household while Edward V had not, by the way, which could account for Simnel ending up as a servant in the royal household, while Warbeck would've been a liability. - I don't think that Elizabeth was ever let into close proximity of Warbeck, and I wonder if she ever met him at all. 7. Of course, that begs the question, why Simnel quietly lived out his life as a servant (see 4.&6.)? - Perhaps he didn't dare try again seeing that after Henry's stunt of making him the Earl of Warwick it would've been near impossible for him to find support for another attempt, especially as a servant at court. Henry could've acted on the old saying 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer'. 8. Why would the King of Scotland marry Warbeck to Lady Katherine if he wasn't Richard, Duke of York? - Well, I guess because Scotland and England had had some issues for centuries. If they could p*ss-off England and Henry in particular, Scotland would take the chance (and vice versa, to be fair). The same goes for Ireland, by the way, which could explain why they would've supported two imposters, though it doesn't necessitate this to be the case. So, as said, with looking at my little list, I still don't know quite what to think, but I guess I'm leaning slightly more towards those two not being imposters. P.S.: While I have heard of it, haven't really looked into the rumours of Edward, Earl of Warwick being spirited away and being replaced by another boy by his father to keep him safe, so I've left that theory out. That said, considering how young the boy would've been at the time, and that Edward IV had probably never laid eyes on him before his father's arrest and consequent execution, it's not Impossible. The same goes for Richard III, who likely never saw the child before 1483 either. There was no medieval Facebook after all...
I'm not sure why writers of historical fiction feel the need to play Agatha Christie (who can't be competed with anyway) when they have perfectly good pieces of history to illustrate according to their talents (?).
I’m not sure where I read it or, if it’s even true. But, it was said that Ferdinand and Isabella would not send their daughter, the future Queen Katherine, to marry Prince Arthur when England was unstable with multiple claimants to the throne. That is one of the reasons Henry VII had both killed.
Would love to hear your take on the new program by Philippa langley relating to the new tv Broadcast "the princes in the tower: the new evidence" that just came out. Compelling and interesting - wish we could get dna on the skeletons found in the tower and the body of perkin warback if they know where he is. Might help with the mystery
I recently watched an video of The Tudor Tracker talking with Matthew Lewis and his theory that the Irish claimed their Edward as Edward V, formerly one of the princes in the tower, not Edward Earl of Warwick and that the latter claim was perhaps Tudor propaganda. I had never heard this theory before. I’d be very interested in hearing if you think there is any evidence for this. Another intriguing question related to this “Edward” is why John de la Pole, who had his own claim to the throne, supported this pretender? Any thoughts on this question?
I read that they swapped Edwards. When they realised that Edward of Warwick was alive and a prisoner, they decided he was Edward Vth. Warbeck is a very different case. I would recommend 'The Perfect Prince' by Ann Wroe. She has gone in depth and produces a convincing argument that Warbeck may very well have been Exactly who he said he was. She also covers Simnel. and explains why and how the Tudor propaganda machine went into overdrive to discredit Warbeck. It's a fascinating read and some of it flies directly in the face of what Kat is saying here. It might be interesting for you to contrast and compare
If Henry VII had been defeated, then De La Pole could have subsequently revealed that his "Edward" was a fake and ascended the throne himself. The real Warwick would remain in the Tower , after all both Richard III and Henry VII had not worried enough about his claim to the throne to want to dispose of him.
@@scienceknitster Richard III named De La Pole as his successor, I am sure he had no intention of relinquishing that claim. At the time many writers said Warwick was simple and not fit to rule [the experience of Henry VI ruling would be in their minds] and so would not be allowed to rule..
Elizabeth never met "Perkin". Henry didn´t allow that. Sure he had a reason. "Perkin" s confession was brought to him by Henry´s men, he just signed it. His confession on the gallows was usual thing, to protect the family of the executed person. His escape form prison was staged, Henry needed to get rid of both pretenders. For the Spaniards and for his sleep.
I can’t be sure she ever spent time in his company alone but he was part of Henry VII’s household for a while, just as Perkin’s wife was part of Elizabeth of York’s. I think it would have been difficult to keep Perkin and Elizabeth completely separate unless she never mixed with his household 🤷🏻♀️
@@ReadingthePast But if they met, it would certainly be mentioned somewhere. if Elizabeth said the boy was not her brother, Henry could sleep well and spare the money for the executioner. Richard/Perkin was beaten in the face repeatedly because he grew up in London and people (and Elizabeth) knew him. He looked like a Yorkist prince, behave like a Yorkist prince, talked like a Yorkist prince, gathered significant support in Europe (for whatever reason), married a nobel woman, in the correspondence of European courts he was Richard, duke of York. I also find weird that John de la Pole would back Warwick since he (John) had a better claim to the throne. I would also say the wars of the roses ended in 1487 at the Battle of Stoke.
This is rather unrelated to the video content, but I was watching yet another documentary on Arthur, Tintagel, Geoffrey of Monmouth etc. Decided to look up History of the kings of Britain and found therein mythical kings like Lear and Cymbeline that Shakespeare would later turn into early modern drama. Lear, at least, seems to have survived as one of the great tragedies. So I don't find it too much of a stretch that Shakespeare and probably the other Elizabethan playwrights as well had access to Geoffrey of Monmouth as a source of material. Henries VII and VIII at least were Arthur fans. But did anyone ever write early modern drama about the Arthurian myths, or is there an Arthur-shaped hole running through the entire 16th, 17th and 18th century until the Victorian romantics rediscovered him? Since Medieval Europe was Arthur-crazy for centuries, did people go off the Arthur myths and start to perceive them as old-fashioned? Was it just that the new audience preferred other material than the Medieval courts? Did The Bard put down his quill and declare "Nay, not a word will I waste on Arthur and Guinevere, methinks the story hath been done to death already?" Would it have been seen as too Catholic, perhaps, or is it more likely that any plays have been lost? I thought you might be able to shed some light here.
Do we know why there was support for Lambert Simnel to be King as Edward, Earl of Warwick but not for the person Henry claimed was Edward, Earl of Warwick? Also, Cornwall is often grumpy at the government in London regardless of the time period. :D
I suppose that Henry VII knew that he had the Earl of Warwick in the Tower of London, but had no more idea than the rest of us what had happened to Richard of Shrewsbury. So he was able to take a relaxed view of the first pretender, but needed to take Perkin Warbeck seriously, just in case he was the son of Edward IV. The whole thing about the end of the Yorkist line has so many loose threads. What happened to the Princes in the Tower? If Richard III had them killed why did he leave the Earl of Warwick alive? He was the son of Richards older brother after all. Richard even knighted the boy in !483. Why did Henry VII never accuse Richard III of killing the Princes? What, if anything did Elizabeth of York know. I do wonder if Richard somehow had the Princes removed from the Tower and smuggled off somewhere. I guess it would be easier to kill them and dispose of the bodies if he took them from the Tower to one of his holdings under an assumed name and then caused them to have an accident. Or he could have taken them somewhere really remote and they stayed there under new names. He could have had them placed in a monastery (or separately in two monasteries). But we will never know.
When a “confession” is given under duress of severe torture it’s highly suspect. He knew several languages, was reportedly highly educated … “confession” doesn’t fit. From what I have read Elizabeth was never allowed to see or talk to “Perkin”. Even if she thought he was her brother there is absolutely nothing she could have done. Aside from possibly giving him a good burial place. His face was reportedly beat beyond recognition at hanging. That’s curious to me. There are way too many questions and discrepancies to rule out legitimate claim. It’s all quite sad. I’m very glad I’m alive now rather than then.
Hi Kat, Another great upload.. Maybe there was some truth in Perkin Walbeck being the real Richard..- and maybe Elizabeth DiD know it was her brother, but she had a son now, who was to be betrothed to the infanta, and what would it mean if she was to recognise this fact, thus giving up her Queenhood and son's future. Will we eVer know for sure!
I'm wondering if there is any credence to the idea that Edward of Warwick was developmentally delayed? They've mentioned it in fiction before (I know fiction is fiction but wonder if it was based on truth).
Another thought: Elizabeth, even if she did recognize her brother, was between a rock and a hard place, given her recognition could potentially compromise her husband and her sons' rights. Whether he was Perkin or Richard, he was doomed.
Yes I have thought that too. If Elizabeth did recognize Perkin as her brother Richard, it was better to give him money and smuggle him out of England, than another civil war which would put her sons in danger.
Yes, I’ve read similar ideas of Elizabeth’s possible motivation to keep quiet about Perkin being her brother. I’ve wondered if part of it was that her confirmation might also seal his fate.
@@scienceknitster Very true. Although, I think eventually Henry would have done him in anyway, just in case anyone might still think he was Richard and begin an uprising in his name. He and his son had a habit of executing Plantagenets.
@@msvaleriah : jakie,, everyone was related, being the plantagenets were originally french....
being that the links between france and england were close in * royal blood line....
King Edward III had several sons, the war of the roses,
was like a * close and distant cousins war*,King Henry VII married a cousin* Queen Elizabeth of York...
also Henry mother, Magaret Countess of Richmond, too had a habit of marrying , for political reasons,,,,her cousins, all were related closely or distantly too... edward III
as for the Pretenders. and their ROYAL SUPPORTERS,
a holy roman emperor-archduke of austria king of hungary -bohemia etc, a yorkist duchess of burgundy, a scottish stuart king.., archbishop of meath, earls in ireland...
yes King Henry VII, would have been looking over his shoulder , even in wales, as the yorkists,
common Yorkist* ancestor ralph mortimer : married a gwenllian * princess of the welsh *....
under medieval welsh law, females could inherit..., under medieval english law females could not inherit...
Edward IV had significant support in south wales ,
many noble familes like herberts, morgans of tredegar were yorkists,
they also gave edmund and jasper tudor trouble, they also claimed the tudors had little or no claim to * prince of wales* , just Prince of gwynedd or the north of wales...
let alone wholehearted * welsh support*....
@liza martin And she would have known immediately!
Elizabeth of York would make a wonderful subject for a future discussion.
She flies under the radar because of her gentle, easy going disposition. But she had a fascinating, often traumatic life. Which I think pushed her towards becoming a peace keeper. Elizabeth would be a great subject for Dr Kat.🙂
@@leonieromanes7265 Agreed, we know very little about Elizabeth. She tended to stay out of the goings on of the Court. Her mother-in-law Margaret Beaufort played a more active role. All we roughly know about Elizabeth is that she was beautiful, religious, charitable and loved by the people
History calling just made a very good video about her.
My father, who fought in WWII, was telling me about his experience at the D-day invasion. I asked questions based upon my reading. At one point, he looked up at me and quietly said, "Honey, at that point we didn't know that we would win." That sentence changed my perspective dramatically.
For many years my Mum told us humorous stories about their lives in Southampton during the war. One day I said - Mum - was it always that funny? She answered - we were absolutely terrified every day for 6 years. I still cry when I remember that.
My father was also in D-Day and he died before I could ask him. But he was always opposed to owning guns.
That gave me chills. Tell him thank you for your service ❤🙏🏾
@@mandylavida my Grandad was an ARP warden in Portsmouth, he and my Nan would tell stories of what happened. But, my Grandad kept quiet about what he had to do after the bombings. It once said it was hard to see houses of friends/family reduced to a pile of rubble knowing that they were in there somewhere. He may not of said much vocally but his face spoke volumes.
@@jhamps4806 l
Richard of Eastwell is an interesting character...aka as Richard Plantagenet. He lived quietly as a laborer but was educated and read Latin also.
He looked about at his world and stayed out of politics. His tomb has never been investigated, and it wouldn't be a Royal Peculiar.
Another reason Lambert Simnel was allowed to live while Perkin Warbeck died could very well be that Simnel was still a child being used as a pawn by the grown ups around him, and thus executing him would’ve been a bad look for Henry, while Warbeck was a grown man and an active, knowing participant in his deceptions, and thus a viable target.
Yep, Lambert Simnel had it easy. On top of getting to live, he (ironically) ended up essentially WORKING with/for the very king he almost screwed with
Even if Elizabeth did know he was her brother, she couldn't have done anything without jeopardizing her own standing as well as her children. Margaret Beaufort pretty much controlled the palace, doing everything she could in outside of what was required by the queen. If Elizabeth recognized one of them as her brother and helped him make his claim, overthrow Henry or helped him escape, her children could have been taken away from her and she could have spent the rest of her life in the Tower.
If Henry had won in the end, he would have killed her brother and stripped her entire family of land, money, titles, everything. If Henry lost, her children would have lost their father. She was in a no-win situation. She couldn't have said anything.
I don’t think Henry ever stopped looking over his shoulder I’m sure that is why he was careful with money, not only for financial security but potentially to have funds to pay an army if there was insurrection
I’m sure too it was a comfort to have his mother - such a strong woman - with him through his reign She died 2 months after him, no doubt just long enough to see Henry Vlll in place
Henry Tudor was a journal writer,
according to Polydor Vergil. I keep hoping that one of them turns up next time there's a renovation at Windsor, where he had a secret room built, as a private study. He spent much of his early life in semi-captivity, and being alone may have been a necessity at times.
As an aside, though, Dr. Kat, Henry Tudor went from Earl to King, any ducal title he may have had would have been after he was King.
I always appreciate how compassionately you talk about the imprisonment and deaths of these historic people. It would be easy to dehumanize them and only think of them as characters in stories (especially given how their lives have been fictionalized and dramatized over the years). You always make me realize that these were people with hopes, dreams, and fears.
Such and interesting video on the pretenders who challenged Henry the 7th. Would you consider doing a video on the Stuart pretenders who wanted the British throne?
I don't know what it is but you're look particularly radiant today!
I’m not going to speculate on anyone’s pregnancy status, but wouldn’t it be interesting if she was pregnant again. It happened to my best friend about the same time after her first 😅
@@Catglittercrafts I'm hoping she finally got some good sleep.
Funnily enough, I thought the same thing. Of course it could also be, finally, a good nights sleep. Guess we’ll find out in due time 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
It's the top the color compliments her skin tone
With Elizabeth of York possibly being able to determine whether Perkin Warbeck was her brother or not, even if she could, would it matter? She didn't have power in her own right and if he was her brother he would serve as a threat to her children and their futures.
I think it was easier for Henry VII to allow Simnel to live because he knew he had the real Edward of Warwick in his possession. He might not have had that kind of security with Perkin.
And I think it was kind of a boost to his reputation. The king could be kind and merciful and let the poor boy live.
....he believed he had the real Edward. Or he wanted to believe it? Anyway Edward wasn´t extreme threat since he was barred from the throne beccause of Clarence's attainder.
@@blackcat2628zd Which could have been revered by an act of parliment. There's legality and what is actually done in practice. Edward IV and Elizabeth's children were illegitimaized by one reign and relegitimized by another.
Gotta love Dr Kat's subtle sassiness
😂😆😂
" About as far from Scotland you can get without leaving the Island"
"Yep, her again"
I’m glad Henry VII didn’t sleep well, because of the Pretenders. His pre-dating his accession to the day before Bosworth was a low and nasty move, enabling him to kill and seize the assets of those who had fought for Richard III, who rightly or wrongly, was the acknowledged King. I never thought he had any real claim to the throne, but marrying Elizabeth of York did give his descendants some legitimacy.
History should not be judged by today’s standards. It was still possible then to fight a king and win the crown.
Duke of Richmond? Earl, from birth until he achieved the crown.
You don't make many errors, Dr. Kat. Also Warwick wasn't a duke either, but an earl.
The Prince by Machiavelli. You'll understand everything Henry did, except you may wonder why he didn't kill more people. He was a pretty mild version, and he was successful.
Exactly. I hate H7 for many reasons but the pre-dating is the worst. Also he
wasn´t exactly brave, sitting on his horse watching the brave guys fighting.
@@blackcat2628zd I that lot of Kings sat and watched the fighting, especially by then.
I think the disparity in treatment of the two pretenders also has to do with the veracity of the claim being pressed. Pretending to be the son of Clarence is one thing, but pretending to be Edward IV’s son is quite another.
I think a lot of these issues could be resolved w finality if BP would allow DNA testing on (at least) the children's remains found at The Tower.
Yes, it would make a very interesting news article too
There are two obstacles. The RF would never allow it. Second, no viable DNA. Part of me still hopes for it to be resolve.
@@leticiagarcia9025 @Leticia Garcia Very good points. Still, the failure of the RF to have any transparency about this just confirms for me their tolerance of serious child abuse in defense of "The Crown". I can tolerate a lot of things (e.g., bad hair days, chronic pain, jerks), but not child abuse/murder.
It probably won't happen for a variety of reasons not least as it may call into question their own legitamacy to be royal
I wish they would allow the testing, too.
I think Henry thought that Perkin was just a loose cannon and would keep escaping xxx
Personally, I believe there are a variety of plausible reasons why Henry VII dealt with Warbeck in such a vastly different way to Simnel. Firstly, Simnel was, simply put, a boy when he was conditioned into becoming a Yorkist figurehead for the throne, John de la Pole was certainly the "brains behind the operation", if you like. In contrast, Warbeck was older than Simnel and therefore acting more of his own accord, yes he was influenced by others very much (e.g.: Margaret of Burgundy and, as you said, Charles VIII). However, Henry VII did initially deal with Warbeck in what I view as a pretty nice way to deal with someone who has been a persistent thorn in your side for about 5 years! He allowed him to stay at court and only after his escape attempts did Henry deal with him more harshly and then again he didn't actually order his execution until Warbeck attempted yet another escape attempt. Certainly, the biggest reason for the vastly different treatment of the pretenders seems to have been Warbeck's uncanny ability to gain foreign support consistently - he was picking it up all over Europe and Henry's inability to deal with the Warbeck threat for years also affected his foreign policy in that Ferdinand of Spain refused to approve the marriage of Prince Arthur and Katherine of Aragon until Henry could deal with the threat posed by Warbeck.
This was a brilliant video by the way, I watched it as a bit of revision for my A-level Tudor history course! :)
Thank you! Best of luck with your exams 🌟
Agree about Henry's lack of blood-thirstiness. Very slow to drop the blade on enemies. He'd rather fine them. I get that. The crown was not solvent. The one time he was hasty was Catesby being executed two days after the battle. The reason has never been fully resolved, unless it was about the summary execution of Hastings, which Catesby had a very low part in. Many mysteries.
Cheers.
and sinmel was just a pretender not even a chance of him being who he claimed while perkin/richard very well could've been the real deal
I just can’t see Perkin Warbeck realistically being Richard of York and this information not being revealed much earlier. I also doubt Elizabeth Woodville would’ve betrothed her daughter Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor knowing that her son Richard was safe and would one day come to reclaim the throne. I believe Henry was much harsher with Perkin as he wasn’t an innocent child being coached into his role the way Lambert was and also because Lambert was a commoner whose ruse would’ve likely been figured out by any skeptics whereas Perkin supposedly came from at least a merchant class background and had enough education to make his ruse more believable. I also think it was much easier to forgive a pretender to the throne the first time around, especially as you said, Henry could produce the real Warrick. It may have also been Warrick’s father being executed for treason that could’ve also led to more leniency since George, the duke of Clarence hadn’t been king and had in fact been branded a traitor. Whereas the real Richard of York could not be produced or definitively ascertained and his father was in fact King, plus any claims of his supposed illegitimacy would’ve hurt Elizabeth of York’s claim to the throne as well. I think with Perkin being the second pretender, being much older, and the further addition of the support of James IV (probably even further heightened by Henry’s ongoing war with Scotland) along with that of Maximilian I as Lambert didn’t have as much or as prominent formal support.
Warbeck was a man with a noble Scottish wife and a son. Even in custody, he was possibly an attractive option for disaffected courtiers. Siminel had been a child, set up by adults who manipulated everything and could do nothing on his own. I think this is the principle reason in why Henry VII treated them so differently.
Part of me, the romantic, wants both of the boys to be the princes. The realistic person acknowledges the fact that powerful men and women wanted someone they could control on the throne.
I think Henry VII used the trumped-up “conspiracy” with the Earl of Warwick to execute Warwick, the real threat. So, Perkin Warbecque had to die, also. The Spanish marriage wouldn’t have gone forward with someone with as strong a claim to the throne as Warwick left alive.
Poor Warwick,one of the many Innocents put to death during the reign of House Tudor
Just a few odd facts if Perkin Warbeck was indeed a Dutch peasant.
He spoke perfect English, no accent, as well as several other languages fluently, as well as being able to read and write them. He was very well educated for the son of a boatman.
When he was in Holland he had to be sent to a special ‘English school’ to learn Dutch. Odd for a native Dutch speaker.
The King of Scotland married him to a member of his family.
He looked almost identical to Edward IV and was very tall. Was said ‘to be very like Edward’.
He had the droopy eyelid recessive in the Plantagenet line, shared by Henry III and Edward I.
He was gifted musically, as had been the prince.
When he was taken out to be executed, Henry VII had his face smashed to a pulp so no one could see the striking resemblance to Edward IV.
The fact needs to be emphasized that he was buried at Austin Friars, a cemetery reserved for the nobility. Another oddity for a purported Dutch peasant. Here are a few others buried there:
Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford
Sir Philip le Despenser
Edward of Angoulême
Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel
Lucia Visconti
Sir John Tyrrell
Sir James Tyrrell
Sir Thomas Cooke
William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley
Maurice Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley
Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham
John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford
There is a room in the Ducal Palace at Bruges called to this day ‘Richard’s room.’
If they were looking for an impostor, it would be almost astronomically impossible to find such a perfect one.
I do wonder though, what was Elizabeth of York's stand on the situation with Perkin Warbeck? Is there any written or verbal proof or her approval / disapproval of what went down?
I heard somewhere Henry VII never allowed her to even meet Perkin Warbeck in case she would recognise him.
We know very little about Elizabeth really. We don't know what she said or thought. She stayed away from matters of the Court. Her mother-in-law Margaret Beaufort played a more active role. All we roughly know about Elizabeth is that she was beautiful, religious, charitable and loved by the people
I think Henry VII intended to show mercy as he did with Lambert Simnel, but the plot with Warwick was like a final straw. Just too risky to let either live. It's interesting that Warbeck's widow was a favoured lady in waiting and proves that neither Henry VII nor Elizabeth of York were vengeful people.
And possibly proved he was not a pretender, but a brother they were forced to kill. Honestly, making Elizabeth responsible for killing her brother or condemning her children was such a despicable thing to force her to do (likely at the at least implicit threat of killing her entire family), and I think likely the idea of the lovely 'Lady Mother'.
If Henry VII lost his Crown then who would have made a greater King Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck?
We visited the Falkland Palace a couple of years ago. I felt then that a lot of history had been hidden, as monarchs were shown to have lived in or visited the palace. Quite a revelation.
Wow. Interesting.
If I were Elizabeth of York, I might not think it's a good idea to tell Henry VII whether I think that's my long-lost brother or not. Indeed, it's entirely possible that Perkin Warbeck was in fact Richard of Gloucester--at least, if you look at a picture of him and Edward IV side by side, there's a distinct resemblance. . They have exactly the same mouth and chin, and the tips of their noses are rather similar. Perkin Warbeck's eyes and eyebrows are also remarkably similar to those in portraits of Elizabeth Woodville. And there's further a distinct possible that Henry VII executed Perkin Warbeck for fear that he was in fact Richard of Gloucester--or possibly even _knowing_ that he was.
Thank you thank you!! I still imagine ( but not believe) that Perkin Warbeck was indeed Richard. It’s like believing that the Man in the Iron Mask was Louis XIV’s secret twin. It’s the mystery that sustains
That first story gives me vibes of being an inspiration for GRRM's (F)Aegon plotline in his bookes, swapped child, boy being groomed to act a king... but with a mix of Perkin Warbeck with the original baby being/thought dead.
I think the 2nd pretender you mention was looked at as more of a threat is because he actually made escape attempts
I was thinking that, myself. Was it simply that Simnel proved himself more trustworthy or true to his word? Seems to me, the royal court was rife with informants and it would have been possible to keep people under close observation. Perhaps, while Warbeck kept trying to run (suggesting he still had supporters recognizing him as "Richard"?), his wife and Simnel were willing to accept a "gilded cage" until they had proved themselves sufficiently.
Also, anyone else notice a "three strikes: you're out" sorta vibe to Warbeck's situation? (Ah my sense of humour)
My personal belief is that 'Perkin' was exactly who he said he was. Just a few odd facts if Perkin Warbeck was indeed a Dutch peasant:
He spoke perfect English, no accent, as well as several other languages fluently as well as being able to read and write them. He was very well educated for the son of a boatman.
When he was in Holland he had to be sent to a special ‘English school’ to learn Dutch. Odd for a native Dutch speaker.
The King of Scotland married him to a member of his family.
He looked almost identical to Edward IV and was very tall. Was said ‘to be very like Edward in looks and manner.'
He had the droopy eyelid recessive in the Plantagenet line, shared by Henry III and Edward I.
He was gifted musically, as had been the prince.
When he was taken out to be executed, Henry VII had his face smashed to a pulp so no one could see the striking resemblance to Edward IV.
He was buried at Austin Friars, a cemetery reserved for the nobility. Another oddity for a purported Dutch peasant. Here are a few others buried there:
Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford
Sir Philip le Despenser
Edward of Angoulême
Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel
Lucia Visconti
Sir John Tyrrell
Sir James Tyrrell
Sir Thomas Cooke
William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley
Maurice Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley
Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham
Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Herford
John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford
There is a room in the Ducal Palace at Bruges called to this day ‘Richard’s room.’
If they were looking for an impostor, it would be almost astronomically impossible to find such a perfect one.
that and that he very well could've been richard even if not he was more a threat
Thank you Dr. Kat! Love your videos. You are an inspiration. Forgive me if you've already covered these topics, but I would love to see a video on architecture - Wren, Nash, Inigo Jones, etc. thanks!
this topic is so fascinating! would you consider doing more episodes on other royal pretenders ?
It was good of Elizabeth to take care of Perkin's wife. Tells me alot about her character.
What we know of Elizabeth is that she was beautiful, religious, charitable and loved by the people. Yes she was kind to Perkins wife and to a young Catherine of Aragon too. A good woman and Queen
‘Henry & The Tudor Machine” - band name!! 🥁🎹🎸🎺🎻🪕🎷🪗
If I had to guess as to why Lambert Simbeau (sp?) was spared, it would have been because he was a child. And as such, he likely would have been told by his parents or other important figures that he had to go along with the ruse. I think the adults around him would be the power behind the throne, and he would be a figurehead. Perkin Warbeck on the other hand was an adult, and had full control over his own decisions and was treated as an adult in Henry VII’s eyes.
Another great presentation! I would love to see a presentation about Boudicca.
Perkin Warbeck confessed under torture, so who knows where the truth lies. The Important detail is Henry VII won. I suspect not killing Simnel was a PR thing as he was only a child and couldn't be seen as anything other than a pawn - points to Henry for not going what others would have (I'm not a fan of Henry Tudor btw). My favourite, although probably most awful, reference to Perkin Warbeck is in Maid Marion and her Merry Men - King John uses Warbeck Torture Machines - by Appointment to Royalty.
Always lovely to see you and enjoy the interesting knowledge you share.
Hoping you and yours are well and content. 🌹
Excellent video as always. Great point about Elizabeth of York would have been able to determine if this was her brother through shared knowledge as siblings. The same would also be true for her sisters, particularly Cecily and Anne who I assume would have been at court from time to time and would have been closer in age to Richard. The two younger sisters might have been too young to remember him.
I've no doubt, that if Elizabeth DiD meet him, even if she wouldn't recognise him, he, at least, would of brought up shared memories of their life together. That's if he was indeed, Richard.
Will you do a video on Thomas Wyatt? He never gets enough coverage for who he was, what he was about and his possible connection to Anne. Whenever I read his poetry it was beyond brave and he escaped the block while so many didn’t. His survivors guilt must have been so very intense. I wish I’d have known him x
I will be sharing this video with my family. Through doing my genealogy, I actually discovered our family's descent from Margaret Plantagenet through her daughter Ursula Pole.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Something I cannot understand is the horrible critical attitude towards Henry VII., who as far as he could showed mercy to all the pretenders until their threat became too great to overlook by attempting to escape, together with the Earl of Warwick. Whereas nobody seems to criticise the yorkists who were cynically using an 11 year old boy to try to garner support. He and Warbeck would have been summarily dumped if their attempts to unseat Henry VII had succeeded.
please do a video about DUCHESS CECILY* OF YORK...
What must she have thought with her husband killed and all 3 of her royal sons dead.,after bosworth......,
then a distant relative son becoming king and her grandaughter Elizabeth becoming queen, then her great grandson prince arthur being born ?
her daughter * Duchess magaret supporting any and all pretenders from burgundy*, also a video about DUCHESS MAGARET OF YORK*...
its almost unmentioned the * european dimension* to english history, its forgotten and being that for a time the King of Scotland supported Perkin Warbek...
I want to know if we can examine the remains of the ‘princes in the tower’ and see if they are indeed the murdered York boys. Similarly, could we not also check the remains of the Pretenders and Edward Plantagenet?
Bodies are analyzed all the time to examine DNA, cause of death, age at the time of death, etc.
During the reign of Charles II some bones were found in the rubble of an excavation at the Tower. They were immediately declared to be the two princes. They were found 18 inches away from an old Roman graveyard. Charles was at the time facing some internal decension and made a big deal out of it as an example of what could happen if a rightful king was deposed. They were examined in the 1930's. The sex of the bones has never been determined, and there are discrepancies galore regarding the measurements of the bones, etc. Residing in the urn at Westminster Abbey, along with the bones, are rusty nails and chicken bones. No DNA has been done on them, Queen Elizabeth would not allow it. Perhaps Charles will.
I'm curious about why they brought him and his wife into the royal household. They had favoured positions and seems odd that someone without usual connections would get that. Is it a case of keeping enemies closer?
I think it is. Keeping both Simnel in the kitchens would prevent outside Yorkist groups from using him again but also a form of confinement for the lad in case further conspiracies developed and Simnel might be a source for intel for Henry. As Simnel served in the kitchens and later became a Falconer, he proved his loyalty to the Tudor household and died a natural death. Likewise, by keeping Warbeque close, that prevented outside conspiracies to form armies and plans...any plans would be intercepted presumably by Henry’s household. I think it also bought Henry time to get as much information as possible as to which players were really backing the Pretender. By keeping Warbeque in his household, it was also a big message to Burgundy, Scotland, and the Holy Roman Empire to back off with their maneuvering. Warbeque was just as much a pawn for their ends as any Yorkist dream. And if Warbeque was a pawn for the Yorkists, he would also presumably be a weak Monarch for England as well because he was in debt to the people who “supported” him. If people thought Tudor had no claim to the throne, eventually the truth that Warbeque was really a nobody would leak out too, undermining the whole monarchy. I think Warbeque was doomed from the start it was a matter of time. Eventually the Yorkists and Poles would find a way to dump him as soon as possible even if he was crowned King.
I always figured that Simnel was one of Richard III's bastards - Richard had at least one (or two depending on sources), who died in obscurity.
Great history...love it. Thank you Dr. Kat.
Love your channel Dr. Kat. I never miss one.
Now I am curious about Dr. Kat's thoughts about the Old pretender and the Young pretender.
Thank you for the excellent video.
I do think the 2 children's bodies should be examined because this is a possible cold case.
Videos on Saint Nicholas Owen and Catherine de Medici would be so interesting
I had never thought of Perkin Warbeck's execution as something to do with the marriage of Arthur and Catherine... it does give Mary I's execution of Lady Jane Grey (to help secure her marriage to Philip II) a strange sense of foreboding if that was the case
Hi I am a new subscriber do you have any videos on Anne Neville and Isabelle Neville.Loving the content thank you xxx
I love all things about British history !! Thankyou for the lessons
Henry VII was, ironically, himself a pretender, having no legitimate claim to the throne. The difference is that he won his big battle and the Wars of the Roses had killed off many legitimate heirs.
Still living in an age when might is right. Henry vii must have spent his life looking over his shoulder. Giving England an entire reign of peace must have made Henry viii much easier to accept.
He was of bastard stock and had no right to claim the throne.
Pretender in this context actually doesn't mean someone who is pretending to be someone he's not, but merely the term for another contestant to the throne.
Sure, in today's general understanding, this term implies deceit of some form or other, but in this case, it's a neural term that could be applied to both a make-believer as well as someone who had a legitimate claim.
So yes, Henry was a pretender to Richard III's crown despite being exactly who he claimed to be, simply because he contested Richard's claim. I guess what you really meant was that Henry was a usurper. One could see it that way, but in case of 'right to rule by conquest' that can be argued.
@@JayArgonauts yes, he had no legitimate claim to the throne but several kings before him were the same. He still lived in an age where might was right. In the context of the time, he can’t really be criticised for that. Richard iii had no claim to the throne either, yet somehow he magicked his nephews away and claimed it all the same.
...and the other big battle two years later at Stoke.
I think it’s too simplistic to suggest Elizabeth of York would’ve publicly or officially recognised her brother, if that is who perkin was. The titular Regis that declared Edward IV’s children illegitimate was repealed by Henry, legitimising Elizabeth of York, but also her kissing brothers. This would give them a stronger claim to the throne. As the wife of her brothers enemy, with her own heirs future and her position as queen- (ie the first subject of her husband and law bound to obey him), she could never have gone on record to acknowledge him as her brother, even if he really was, because of position as Henry’s queen. That’s my opinion anyway
Quite possibly. It would also account for why 'Perkin', a supposed Dutch peasant, was buried in Austin Friars, reserved for the high nobility for centuries. I see Elizabeth's hand it that.
Thank you dr Kat. Brilliant as usual and the captions 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍. Thank you. I’ve always been in two minds about perkin war beck. Was he, wasn’t he? I didn’t think Elizabeth of York ever met him. Am I wrong there? I thought Henry kept her away. I guess no one will ever know and that’s what makes it such a good story. Also, most ‘stories’ of the boys in the tower only came out during the Tudor reign . That’s always been a bit Suss to me. Hope the family are well . Thanks once again. I so look forward to Friday evenings. 🙏🙏🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Excellent as always, Dr. Kat!!
I always get in trouble for saying something ignorant when I comment about this general subject. I don't know what I believe but an awful lot revolves around the princes in the tower. Who knew what, and when, way back at the beginning? I too have made points about the various pretenders apparently not being recognized by family. Yet it is recorded that the household of Elizabeth Woodville was close and family was revered. If any of the pretenders were princes, I would think they would have had memories and been recognized by the many members of the family. (I would also expect a true prince to have quickly had a fatal accident during the reign of Henry VII. I am not a complete romanticist.)
The bottom line is, the disappearance of the princes in the tower caused lots of grief for many. Though I am not a big fan of Occam's Razor, it seems there must be a simpler explanation that became complex through various conspiracies. I don't even think the princes were murdered. Richard had declared them bastards and assumed the throne. Those who know more than me claim that bastardizing the boys made them unimportant. (Unless of course uprisings would use them for regime change.) IMO, the princes died of natural causes. There was some indication that Edward was ill before the disappearance. IMO, it was King Richard's choice to quietly bury or dispose of the remains. Conspiracy theories grew.
We can see similar in a couple modern crimes; the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, and the 9/11 disaster in 2001. Kennedy is simpler since the strongest evidence at this time is that Lee Harvey Oswald, a misfit and mentally ill man, acted alone. To make the point, let's say he did. All sorts of peculiar bits and pieces seem to define a huge conspiracy but the pieces are actually a string of reactions ranging from FBI's J. Edgar Hoover basically lying to the Warren Commission to honest bystanders who thought shots came from the "grassy knoll". The ultimate misstep was when mentally distraught Jack Ruby fatally shot Oswald.
So much information I've got to watch it again! Sometimes I take notes. I really enjoy English history b/c of my ancestry and love of Shakespeare and all the other great British writers, so many whom are women!!!
As always very interesting. I have always wondered about the pretenders. I still do . Thank you
I think I think that Simnel was smart enough to find loyalty to the King's household, whereas Warbeck's escape attempts doomed him. I also wouldn't be surprised if the latter's wife betrayed the plot herself. I mean, she married a prince, only to find out it was a cloth merchant. I'd be rather upset if I were in her shoes.
I agree, I came here to say this myself. thanks!
Agreed. Had Warbeck's attempt been successul, he could have kept being a thorn in the side. Plus, Henry might have been miffed by Warbeck turning out such an ingrate, when he easily could have been executed right away.
Another reason Lambert Simnel was allowed to live while Perkin Warbeck died could very well be that Simnel was still a child being used as a pawn by the grown ups around him, and thus executing him would’ve been a bad look for Henry, while Warbeck was a grown man and an active, knowing participant in his deceptions, and thus a viable target.
@@thelittleredhairedgirlfrom6527 Or it could be because "Perkin" was heir to the throne.
As always, enjoyed your video very much. Had Warbeck taken the throne, I wonder what the royal family would look like now. One change in history would make huge changes in the present.
I would love it if you could do some makeup, hairdressing and fashion history videos, thanks dear Dr. Kat.
There was one last year I think it was. Maybe go back through the videos and look. There could be a couple of different one. 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
I really enjoy your videos, Dr Kat! They are well written, clear and easy to follow and always interesting. I wonder, too, why Elizabeth of York did not support Perkin Warbeck. I think that she was caught between "a rock and a hard place" - supporting Warbeck as her brother meant abondoning her son Arthur - potentially setting up another War of the Roses - but very possibly, at some point, leading to Arthur's death. So who to choose - someone who might be her brother or her son? I am pretty sure Elizabeth never met with Warbeck - so that way she was able to have deniability and not have to sacrifice her son and his inheritance to someone who may not be her brother. A horrible choice.
I always thought Henry Tudor was tolerant of Lambert Simeneau (sic) because he had the real Edward in the Tower. I also think he was spared because at 11 it was obvious the child had nothing to do with the plot. I think Henry knew the whereabouts of the remains of the real Richard, but could not produce them, as this would untarnish (at the least) the legacy of Richard III. Not saying Henry, or his mother, killed the princes, but I do think Henry VII knew the whereabouts of their remains. Thus he could be certain, even if no one else was, that Perkin Warbeck was NOT the late Duke of York. Since Warbeck was an active participant in this plot and had two escape attempts keeping him alive would be a huge liability. Plus there is the Spanish demand the crown be secure before the marriage between Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, eliminating Warbeck and the real Warwick were necessary.
Sorry - forgot it was not kosher to include links. I do hope you'll check it out, though.
Dr Kat, your "air quotes" were totally cute. Thank you for teaching me English history in such a fascinating way.
Thank you for the discussion the pretenders to Henry VII's throne. I had seen a TH-cam discussion recently that implied that Perkin Warbeck was actually one of the Princes in the Tower who had somehow escaped. There do seem to have been an awful lot of Plantagenets, like Margaret of Burgundy, still around to to give Henry headaches! I recently discovered the identity of my birth father, and research took me to early colonial New England. A couple of my ancestors have interesting tie-ins to English history that I'd like to know more about. One was apparently shipped to Massachusetts after taking part in the Monmouth Rebellion. Another had come to Massachusetts, married and had daughters. However, after his wife's death, he put the girls in care of relatives and returned to England to fight with the Parliamentarians. He was wounded at the Battle of Nasby. He married the woman who nursed him back to health and brought her back to America. Yet another fled after taking part in the Battle of Dunbar. Other ancestors were Scots who went to Ulster before coming to America. I hope that in the future you will discuss one or a couple of these topics.
Informative and fascinating as usual
I really appreciate your channel, thank you 😊
Could "Perkin" truly have been Richard?? Surely if Elizabeth did acknowledge Him, as Richard.. wouldn't She be putting Her own Children's hereditary claim's at risk?
The mini series the white princess is based on this it was such a fantastic show.
It was historical fiction but a good show. So was the preceding series The White Queen. I'm sure they inspired many people to do some factual research afterwards
@@Shane-Flanagan Oh yes it did same when i watched the tudors tv series.
I can't see Henry or Elizabeth giving up everything that they had been through to build a new dynasty just so Elizabeth's younger sibling (that she hadn't seen in years) could destroy it all and take the throne.
Yay! A new Dr. Kat video has appeared!
I have no idea what the eff was going on. Edward and his brother Richard were most likely murdered in the Tower by Richard III but there’s just so many things in that story that don’t add up. Whether that’s because we simply don’t have enough of the details, or because everyone at the time was just being weird, or both, I don’t know.
@16:34 - To play devil’s advocate, maybe Elizabeth of York DID recognize him and that’s why he had to be killed. 😳 (I know this is the historical fiction aspect you spoke of but it does make for good fiction lol)
She never saw him.
Even though I’m generally yorkist, it’s so incredibly unlikely that perkin warbeck was in fact Prince Richard. That said, I do enjoy his portrayal as such in historical fiction because, well, it’s just entertaining isn’t it! I guess it was simply his adulthood that made Henry treat him as a significant threat. It’s also possible he really did bear an uncanny resemblance to the Plantagenet boys although for the amount of people that would ever see him with their own eyes this probably wouldn’t have mattered.
I don´t see being executed at young age entertaining. I believe that the boy was Richard, duke of York. Not only because of his appearance but all facts, rumours and Henry´s utter panic point this direction.
Essex House -- especially earl of essex's wife (Daughter of Frances Walsingham, widow of Philip Sidney, and his older sister, Penelope Devereaux Rich...
I'm not sure if Elizabeth of York would've admitted it was her brother. Yes "The White Queen" was not based on historical accounts but more of how Phillipa Gregory had seen the conspiracy theories played out. However, as a mother, her desire to protect her children would've been of greater concern. If I had been in Elizabeth's shoes, I would've claimed him as an imposter as well to protect my own children. I wish more was known of her disposition, and of her character.
Phillippa Gregory writes great fiction… making Margaret the murderer of the princes was such a better storyline that Shakespeare’s tired old account. The Tower was the most fortified building of it’s time, and if the boys were allowed to live Richard would have another civil war to deal with. Richard had the True Crime holy trinity… means… motive and opportunity… However, none of that even matters, Henry VII faced Richard III on a field of battle and won… Like William the Conqueror did, like Henry Bolingbrook did, and like Edward IV did. Richard III was the usurper not Henry VII.
"This plan was revealed... somehow"
Someone told. Someone always tells. It is known...
Hurray - always glad to see our videos. I don't know if it's a stupid question, but was wondering why, if the wars are fought between the house of York and Lancaster, the king is placed in London and not the North of England?
I am new to your videos, but I appreciate them so much!
Is it right that Perkin Warbeck was buried st Austin Priors. If so is it not odd for a commoner?
So, what do I think? I don't really know. - Sure we've got the historical records which all seem to point to the two pretenders being imposters, however, the question is, can we trust these records unconditionally? I have my doubts. It's a case of 'the winner takes it all', and with that, seeing that for Henry and his newly founded dynasty it was vital to have everyone believe those two to be imposters they could've been who they claimed to be after all - or perhaps not. Who knows?
But with that being said, as with so many things, something doesn't quite seem to add up. There are just too many things that seem very odd and which make me pause:
1. Would Margaret really have supported two imposters, one of them but a young boy whose reign would've caused serious problems, when there was an adult Yorkist claimant to the throne in England in the person of John de la Pole?
- Rather unlikely.
2. Would John de la Pole have supported an imposter and with that risk everything?
- I doubt it.
3. How does Warbeck supposedly being in Ireland as silk merchant fit in with him being already supported by Maximilian?
- No idea.
4. Did Simnel really claim to be Edward, Earl of Warwick or could he have claimed to be Edward V, now that he would've been legitimate again? In that case, Henry could've spread false information about whom this boy claimed to be in order to mark him out as an imposter by publicly showing the boy in his custody, Edward, Earl of Warwick and mocking the boy who would be known from then on as Lambert Simnel. So who of the two Edwards was it even supposed to be?
- Again, I haven't got the foggiest.
5. On that sideline, it is interesting to note that 1487, when Simnel appears on the scene, is the same year Elizabeth Woodville is ordered to retire to Bermondsey Abbey. Coincidence?
- Perhaps, but interesting regardless.
6. Was Elizabeth of York even allowed to meet Warbeck, or was she kept away from him? - Her brother Richard had grown up in the same household while Edward V had not, by the way, which could account for Simnel ending up as a servant in the royal household, while Warbeck would've been a liability.
- I don't think that Elizabeth was ever let into close proximity of Warbeck, and I wonder if she ever met him at all.
7. Of course, that begs the question, why Simnel quietly lived out his life as a servant (see 4.&6.)?
- Perhaps he didn't dare try again seeing that after Henry's stunt of making him the Earl of Warwick it would've been near impossible for him to find support for another attempt, especially as a servant at court. Henry could've acted on the old saying 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer'.
8. Why would the King of Scotland marry Warbeck to Lady Katherine if he wasn't Richard, Duke of York?
- Well, I guess because Scotland and England had had some issues for centuries. If they could p*ss-off England and Henry in particular, Scotland would take the chance (and vice versa, to be fair). The same goes for Ireland, by the way, which could explain why they would've supported two imposters, though it doesn't necessitate this to be the case.
So, as said, with looking at my little list, I still don't know quite what to think, but I guess I'm leaning slightly more towards those two not being imposters.
P.S.: While I have heard of it, haven't really looked into the rumours of Edward, Earl of Warwick being spirited away and being replaced by another boy by his father to keep him safe, so I've left that theory out. That said, considering how young the boy would've been at the time, and that Edward IV had probably never laid eyes on him before his father's arrest and consequent execution, it's not Impossible. The same goes for Richard III, who likely never saw the child before 1483 either. There was no medieval Facebook after all...
I'm not sure why writers of historical fiction feel the need to play Agatha Christie (who can't be competed with anyway) when they have perfectly good pieces of history to illustrate according to their talents (?).
Amen, f'chrissakes! Too true.
When evidence fails...
Gee, it seems that a lot of monarchs didn't buy into the rumors that Richard III murdered his nephews in the Tower.
I’m not sure where I read it or, if it’s even true. But, it was said that Ferdinand and Isabella would not send their daughter, the future Queen Katherine, to marry Prince Arthur when England was unstable with multiple claimants to the throne. That is one of the reasons Henry VII had both killed.
Would love to hear your take on the new program by Philippa langley relating to the new tv Broadcast "the princes in the tower: the new evidence" that just came out. Compelling and interesting - wish we could get dna on the skeletons found in the tower and the body of perkin warback if they know where he is. Might help with the mystery
I recently watched an video of The Tudor Tracker talking with Matthew Lewis and his theory that the Irish claimed their Edward as Edward V, formerly one of the princes in the tower, not Edward Earl of Warwick and that the latter claim was perhaps Tudor propaganda. I had never heard this theory before. I’d be very interested in hearing if you think there is any evidence for this. Another intriguing question related to this “Edward” is why John de la Pole, who had his own claim to the throne, supported this pretender? Any thoughts on this question?
I read that they swapped Edwards. When they realised that Edward of Warwick was alive and a prisoner, they decided he was Edward Vth. Warbeck is a very different case. I would recommend 'The Perfect Prince' by Ann Wroe. She has gone in depth and produces a convincing argument that Warbeck may very well have been Exactly who he said he was. She also covers Simnel. and explains why and how the Tudor propaganda machine went into overdrive to discredit Warbeck. It's a fascinating read and some of it flies directly in the face of what Kat is saying here. It might be interesting for you to contrast and compare
If Henry VII had been defeated, then De La Pole could have subsequently revealed that his "Edward" was a fake and ascended the throne himself. The real Warwick would remain in the Tower , after all both Richard III and Henry VII had not worried enough about his claim to the throne to want to dispose of him.
@@neilbuckley1613 I’ve heard that theory and have wondered what evidence there is for it.
@@hogwashmcturnip8930 I have Wroe’s book on Kindle. Unfortunately, remote work has left me little time for reading these days.
@@scienceknitster Richard III named De La Pole as his successor, I am sure he had no intention of relinquishing that claim. At the time many writers said Warwick was simple and not fit to rule [the experience of Henry VI ruling would be in their minds] and so would not be allowed to rule..
Love your channel! Would love to see a video discussing Alison Wier's theory that Anna of Cleves had secretly given birth before coming to England.
Elizabeth never met "Perkin". Henry didn´t allow that. Sure he had a reason. "Perkin" s confession was brought to him by Henry´s men, he just signed it. His confession on the gallows was usual thing, to protect the family of the executed person. His escape form prison was staged, Henry needed to get rid of both pretenders. For the Spaniards and for his sleep.
I can’t be sure she ever spent time in his company alone but he was part of Henry VII’s household for a while, just as Perkin’s wife was part of Elizabeth of York’s.
I think it would have been difficult to keep Perkin and Elizabeth completely separate unless she never mixed with his household 🤷🏻♀️
@@ReadingthePast But if they met, it would certainly be mentioned somewhere. if Elizabeth said the boy was not her brother, Henry could sleep well and spare the money for the executioner. Richard/Perkin was beaten in the face repeatedly because he grew up in London and people (and Elizabeth) knew him. He looked like a Yorkist prince, behave like a Yorkist prince, talked like a Yorkist prince, gathered significant support in Europe (for whatever reason), married a nobel woman, in the correspondence of European courts he was Richard, duke of York. I also find weird that John de la Pole would back Warwick since he (John) had a better claim to the throne. I would also say the wars of the roses ended in 1487 at the Battle of Stoke.
I enjoy your videos very much :)
This is rather unrelated to the video content, but I was watching yet another documentary on Arthur, Tintagel, Geoffrey of Monmouth etc. Decided to look up History of the kings of Britain and found therein mythical kings like Lear and Cymbeline that Shakespeare would later turn into early modern drama. Lear, at least, seems to have survived as one of the great tragedies. So I don't find it too much of a stretch that Shakespeare and probably the other Elizabethan playwrights as well had access to Geoffrey of Monmouth as a source of material. Henries VII and VIII at least were Arthur fans. But did anyone ever write early modern drama about the Arthurian myths, or is there an Arthur-shaped hole running through the entire 16th, 17th and 18th century until the Victorian romantics rediscovered him? Since Medieval Europe was Arthur-crazy for centuries, did people go off the Arthur myths and start to perceive them as old-fashioned? Was it just that the new audience preferred other material than the Medieval courts? Did The Bard put down his quill and declare "Nay, not a word will I waste on Arthur and Guinevere, methinks the story hath been done to death already?" Would it have been seen as too Catholic, perhaps, or is it more likely that any plays have been lost? I thought you might be able to shed some light here.
How different our past would have been, and therefore our present and future, if the rightful person had been crowned.
Who do you see as ‘rightful’?
Do we know why there was support for Lambert Simnel to be King as Edward, Earl of Warwick but not for the person Henry claimed was Edward, Earl of Warwick?
Also, Cornwall is often grumpy at the government in London regardless of the time period. :D
I suppose that Henry VII knew that he had the Earl of Warwick in the Tower of London, but had no more idea than the rest of us what had happened to Richard of Shrewsbury. So he was able to take a relaxed view of the first pretender, but needed to take Perkin Warbeck seriously, just in case he was the son of Edward IV.
The whole thing about the end of the Yorkist line has so many loose threads.
What happened to the Princes in the Tower?
If Richard III had them killed why did he leave the Earl of Warwick alive? He was the son of Richards older brother after all. Richard even knighted the boy in !483.
Why did Henry VII never accuse Richard III of killing the Princes?
What, if anything did Elizabeth of York know.
I do wonder if Richard somehow had the Princes removed from the Tower and smuggled off somewhere. I guess it would be easier to kill them and dispose of the bodies if he took them from the Tower to one of his holdings under an assumed name and then caused them to have an accident. Or he could have taken them somewhere really remote and they stayed there under new names. He could have had them placed in a monastery (or separately in two monasteries).
But we will never know.
When a “confession” is given under duress of severe torture it’s highly suspect. He knew several languages, was reportedly highly educated … “confession” doesn’t fit. From what I have read Elizabeth was never allowed to see or talk to “Perkin”. Even if she thought he was her brother there is absolutely nothing she could have done. Aside from possibly giving him a good burial place. His face was reportedly beat beyond recognition at hanging. That’s curious to me. There are way too many questions and discrepancies to rule out legitimate claim. It’s all quite sad. I’m very glad I’m alive now rather than then.
New evidente seems to prove that the princes in the tower were not killed by Richard lll after all. There is no such thing as a pretender in this case
Hi Kat,
Another great upload.. Maybe there was some truth in Perkin Walbeck being the real Richard..- and maybe Elizabeth DiD know it was her brother, but she had a son now, who was to be betrothed to the infanta, and what would it mean if she was to recognise this fact, thus giving up her Queenhood and son's future. Will we eVer know for sure!
I'm wondering if there is any credence to the idea that Edward of Warwick was developmentally delayed? They've mentioned it in fiction before (I know fiction is fiction but wonder if it was based on truth).