Have I convinced you that Margaret didn’t have anything to do with the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower? Let me know below. You can also find me on: BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
Even by contemporary standards, Margaret was deemed too young to consummate a marriage. It’s one of the reasons Edmund Tudor was disliked. He was seen as greedy for wanting her fortune, consummating the marriage so quickly to make the union “official”, and having no care for young Margaret.
Even Margaret’s own physician who attended the birth sounded horrified that such a young girl, who was apparently small for even a 13 year old, was giving birth, and was shocked that both mother and child survived. His account certainly supports that idea that this was not normal for the time
Margret truly had no choice but to go all in. And by god did she do just that. She’s probably one of the most badass people in history. She went from a child mother with no power to the Queen Mother. What a legend
She is my 29th great grandmother. I can see where I get my drive and ambition from, I have many of the royal lines in my DNA. But so far I have just heard about her. I'm an American but with high percentage of England, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Scotland families. I hope to see more videos detailing the happenings of their lives as well. Thank you for the positive vibe concerning her.
@@InTheGarden1960 you have nothing to do with her don't thank them for how they feel about her... You're so far removed from her it barely counts, if it counts at all
No one knows who killed the princes I saw programme that looked into the case against Richard and they did it liked a modern day case with judge and jury and they could not find any evidence that Richard did kill them and the jury threw it out as it would be in a modern court so that convinced me, also Margaret and Henry the seventh had motive as well also Shakespeare did not help with his play written for Elizabeth history is written by the winners is true the Tudors blamed Richard for everything so we will never know
We always hear about how young people were when they started their families in this time, but the thought of 12 is absolutely unthinkable to me. Being 16 and having your child taken from you, and unaware that the one thing that you’re expected to do (have more kids) is not going to happen? The fear she must have lived in for most of her life.
So many dramas make her seem like a plotter and backhanded and just down right terrible, and if you just watch those, it can be convincing with how dedicated she was to her son. But like you said, there’s no historical evidence that she spent her entire life plotting for the throne. It’s much more likely that she was just a mom who wanted the very best for her child
I know. It was a very rough life in many ways. We know she got a happy ending of sorts with her son, but they lost so much time together and of course neither of them knew that it would work out in the end. Talk about stressful.
@@bumblephee96 Funny, isn't it, how often women who managed to make a real difference to the course of events are later portrayed as evil and conniving?
Even though the age of consent set by the Catholic Church at the time was 12 for girls full marriages ie ones that were actually consummated were rare before the late teens early twenties. It was not uncommon for arranged marriages to have one or more proxy ceremonies before the actually wedding with both parties after which the marriage still would not consider fully done until consummation. Some couples that married younger waited a few years to consummate or if there was concern about the stability of the match there would likely be some form of public bedding then the issue was tabled for a couple of years unless the need for a heir became pressing. They knew it was potentially dangerous and high ranking matches took a lot to arrange.
Margaret Beaufort is one of my absolute favorite historical figures. Tenacity, strategy, resilience...she gets overshadowed so often but she's so admiable.
Margaret Beaufort was definitely an incredibly lucky and savvy woman to survive all those seemingly insurmountable challenges to change the course of the British monarchy. Amazing story!
I wrote about the Wars of the Roses for my MA dissertation this year, and for the first half of my Tudor chapter I focused on Lady Margaret Beaufort, how she became an apt political player in Edward IV’s reign, worked toward having Henry returned from exile and pardoned and then her political manoeuvring in having her son put forth as a rival claimant to the throne. Dan Jones also credits her in his The Hollow Crown book on the wars if you wanted to do some more reading on her.
@@HistoryCalling She really is a figure I think should be written about more. Henry VII would not have made it even back to the English coast the first time if not for her. Seriously underrated figure in this period, along with Margaret of Anjou.
@@aidanrogers4438 I agree it's the two Margarets' that effectively won the contest for their house 🥀. Just by staying alive when all seemed lost and keeping up the struggle, one after the other. Lady Margaret's relatives were strewn about the casuality list about her, the Beauforts, Staffords, Welles'. Christmastide 1497 and it could have ended tragically and there been no Tudor dynasty. Margaret, her son and daughter-in-law visiting a ramshackle Richmond Palace. Engulfed in flames, blazing roof, the two ladies ran, Henry too, seconds before a blazing roof-timber fell. The People Profiles have just done an excellent profile.
@@HistoryCalling The newest biography of Margaret is Uncrowned Queen: The Life of Margaret Beaufort, Mother of the Tudors by Nicola Tallis. She has also written Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey and Elizabeth's Rival: The Tumultuous Life of the Countess of Leicester: The Romance and Conspiracy that Threatened Queen Elizabeth's Court. I have all of these and I think Tallis is an excellent biographer.
Thank you for showcasing these powerhouse women behind the Wars of the Roses. Their intelligence and the lengths they go to protect their family, taking every advantage of every opportunity to keep their lives and the lives of their children is treated often as a footnote in history, but was truly monumental in the war. The wars of the roses has always been to me, in a way, a pointless war with too many lives lost and so much family infighting, leaving the rest of the world to be permanently confused about the motives, upheavals, who truly is the “winner” after all the destruction, and why everyone is named Henry, Richard, or Edward.
You're very welcome and I'm absolutely with you on how confusing the names were. There were 3 Princes of Wales called Edward in the space of 15 years for instance and two were alive at the same time for a while. Total nightmare for the historian.
@@HistoryCalling I rewatch the genealogy in every of your Wars of the Roses videos. I always say, “Oh, ok! That’s right, I get it now!” Then, it’s shortly followed by, “Wait…What?” Haha. And it never helps when people switch sides and mix through marriage and are related multiple times over. Even the ladies have some of the same names. How do you historians keep all this straight? I imagine the exams were a nightmare. I recently discovered your channel, by the way, and I absolutely love it. I have binged every video you’ve made and love sharing the information with my family and friends. I am from the US and the drama of the monarchy is so juicy! Haha. When you shared the letter of little Catherine asking for other Catherines to donate for a proper memorial for Catherine of Aragon, I cried. I shared it immediately with my husband who was also teary-eyed. I have a friend who lives in the UK and shared videos with her; she said she never learned about Oliver Cromwell in school. We were discussing the Crown Jewels at the time and I mentioned the destruction and sale of many of the pieces. I told her about you and your videos and how much I have learned. We are all hooked on your videos now!
I'd not heard of Margaret (been a bit lazy with my history for a bit) and so saw the Netflix series based on Gregory's books that make her out not just to be cautious and intelligent, but a religious maniac, excusing killing the princes with the religious fervour that her son should be on the throne. You make complete sense and it changes how one looks at Margaret entirely. Savvy, strategic, strong, protective - yes. Murderess, no. And, 12 when pregnant. I can't even imagine. She had to be 30 at 13.
I have never heard about Margaret being accused of such a heinous act. I’m glad you brought it up and explained it. I’m convinced she didn’t have anything to do with it. You always do such a beautiful job telling history I really enjoy your channel! I’ve been watching/listening for a over a year. Absolutely love it. Thank you. ❤
Of course she did! She didn’t want anyone else to make a claim over her son after all she had done to get him there as horrid as it is unfortunately that is what was done
That family tree is so mixed together that it’s almost soap opera worthy! I have never believed Margaret was responsible for the Princes in the Tower; like you explained, it just didn’t benefit her or her son at that time. Great video on what could have been a very confusing subject! I look forward to next week!
Thanks Cassi. Yes, the family trees are headache inducing. I bet some of them even forgot how they were related to one another sometimes :-) See you next week.
Me too. I know Margaret desperately wanted to protect her son, and hindsight is 20/20, but things just didn't add up. As it was explained, it wasn't going to benefit Margaret OR her son Henry. If anything, it would almost certainly RUIN them. It could've even resulted in at least Lady Margaret being executed.
Philippa Gregory also had some other weird theories in her fiction books, from what I've read (I did not read any of her books directly). For example, that Anne Boleyn truly did sleep with her brother in order to give the king a male heir and that Richard III wanted to get rid of his wife and marry his niece Elizabeth of York. 😝
I'm so excited for this video, Margaret Beaufort is just so badass and it's hard not to like her with how she reclaimed her life after such tragedies as a small child
The maternal mortality rate skyrockets the younger the mother. Her suffering, not to mention what amounts to a rape, would have have been traumatic. Edmund makes my skin crawl. Amazing woman.
⚘ Beautifully researched, and YES. I DID NOT KNOW that the remaining Woodville brothers were at Bosworth with Henry Tudor. To me, this speaks volumes. After decades of thinking in terms of motive and laying the young boys' disappearance at Ms. Beaufort's feet - you have, indeed, convinced me that I was wrong. My goodness. What a sad tragedy, the young princes. AGAIN, A STANDING OVATION AND BRAVA! to you for the outstanding research and this exceptional historic lesson.
Agree with you 100% about Richard III - am always amazed by historian Matthew Lewis' arguments (or "IF" as i prefer to call him) Never have i heard so many "ifs" in my life. In addition to your cogent summary would add that all the surviving contemporary and near contemporary sources all assume that Richard had the boyz done away with. Dr Starkey turned up the interesting fact that Henry VII and Elizabeth of York both attended all of Tyrell's trial which suggests that they wanted to know what had happened to the boys. Lastly while Shakespeare is often dismissed as a Tudor apologist, his grandfather fought in the Wars of the Roses. He's sufficiently near to the events to have painted a portrait of Richard that everyone at the time recognised. Moreover a portrait that is backed by the man who could so swiftly and brutally turn on Hastings and on Woodville. "Why I can smile and murder while I smile" That dish of strawberries he brought to the council meeting. before he executed Hastings without trial. The convivial supper with Woodville. Richard, the smiling assassin.. Lastly there is the fact that pretty much everyone deserted Richard on the battlefield. Recent evidence suggests that even the men of York who were supposedly so "heavy hearted": did not send that many actual troops to support him.
😂 "If"!! ❤ Omg that's excellent! 😅 The proof of desertion and the opposition's distain for R III can be found in the forensic evidence of injuries discovered on his skeletal remains. Heavy duty!
You are the most excellent storyteller of history. Your graceful diplomacy is admirable and your knowledge unparalleled. I always enjoy your well-researched content, but this one is a standout. Well done! Oh, and Margaret had nothing to do with the York boys; definitely Richard III’s machinations!
I agree. It always annoys me when people ascribe motives to historical figures that only make sense in light of much later events that could not have been predicted at the time. At the time the boys in the Tower disappeared, Margaret could not have expected that Richard III's wife and son would die. Richard was in his early thirties and looked to be able to hold the throne for the foreseeable future.
Yes, it really didn't benefit her at that time to take such a risk. Later in the year however, when Richard's reputation had sunk, Buckingham was willing to desert him and Elizabeth Woodville was looking for an ally, it was a whole other matter.
This is an excellent presentation that held my interest all along. The brisk but empathetic narration and the graphics really helped in this complex subject. Thanks.
I’ve been reading about Margaret Beaufort so this video was a bit of serendipity for me. What an amazing lady! She pretty much put the men who were participating in the Cousins’ War to shame with her sheer grit, political savvy and tenacity. In fact, I personally believe that she would’ve been a much better queen than Edward IV, Henry VI and even her own son Henry VII. I believe that Elizabeth I was the closest thing to having her great-grandmother on the throne of England.
You convinced me she couldn’t have been involved through all your other splendid work to date. I struggle sometimes to keep everyone in British history straight but you have a way of helping me keep all the different people with the same damn name separate. I read the title and was like that makes no sense why would Henry VIIs mom want the Princes dead that doesn’t make any sense at all. I knew who all the major players were and how they were related all thanks to you.
I've been studying the Wars of the Roses for about two weeks now and your video is the first to do a clear breakdown of the line of succession that led to this war. Subscribed.
Ooooh finally, I have been waiting for Margaret for a long time! She is also one of my favourite historical figures. I admire her greatly and I'm so happy to see such a long video by you ❤
I so appreciate your historically accurate videos. I’ve been binging for about a week now! I can’t get enough! 😂 thank you so much for the work you put in to these videos! ❤❤❤
Margaret Beaufort is certainly one of my favourite women in history. The notion that she had anything to do with the death of the two young princes in the tower is simply one of history's fake news. Margaret was a resilient, savvy survivor, who probably had a very strong personality. Her importance in Tudor history is often either overlooked or misunderstood. I am looking forward to next week's video, covering Margaret's role in consolidating the new Tudor dynasty
I didn’t need convincing. However thank you for posting such an extremely well explained video. After reading Sharon Penman’s Sunne In Splendour about 30 years ago I went through a phase of thinking Richard was the best thing since sliced bread. Then I started reading the non fiction accounts of the Wars of the Roses, Richard and the history of the time. I went back to thinking if the boys were murdered that it was overwhelmingly more likely Richard was responsible. I have a more nuanced view of Richard these days - potentially a very good king, but also extremely ruthless. The two not being mutually exclusive.
Yes, that's true actually. One could be an effective leader, but a terrible person. People actually looked back on Henry VIII's reign with great fondness after he died for instance and talked about Good King Hal. Probably most of them had never met him ...
I’ve always believed Richard was responsible for the princes deaths. Margaret was too savvy to have those princes killed. These stories are worthy of a soap opera! I can hardly keep all the characters straight no matter how many times I hear the same stories. It is interesting to hear them from different peoples lives. Thanks for another intriguing video! ❤
and actually, what would she gain? Richard's heir was still alive; all that would have been achieved is exactly what happened - Uncle Richard on the throne.
It's a good question I'm not sure if it was Richard I don't think Margaret was responsible for the murder either (I could be wrong about them,) I don't think we'll ever know what happen to the princes. I feel sorry for them they were just kids.@@srkh8966
Yes!! We're finally getting the Margaret Beaufort episode!! I typically don't like to have historical faves, but Margaret is one figure that I admire. She went from pawn and victim to the mother of one of the most famous royal dynasties in Europe. I didn't need convincing that she had the York boys killed. If she was even a possibility at the time, why on earth didn't Richard try to shift the blame to her? Especially once it became known that it was her son who was trying to take the throne? It would have been a useful piece of political propaganda, and the fact that it was never used speaks volumes (or even whispered about, from what it sounds like). And since Elizabeth Woodville was working with Margaret, that says a lot too, like you said.
Yes, there's really no evidence that she had either a true motive or opportunity to have the children killed. I know some people say that she had the most to gain, but that's only when you apply historical hindsight. In the summer of 1483 she had no reason to think Henry would ever be King. The idea would have seemed pretty ridiculous with Edward V, the Duke of York, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, his son, the Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Buckingham and even Edward IV's daughters all alive and ahead of Henry in the succession.
Ahhhhh I’ve been waiting for this one!! Just a couple more hours until I’m done with work and can watch the full thing in earnest. Lady Margaret Beaufort is one of my all-time favorite historical figures as well and you are one of my all-time favorite TH-camrs, so thank you in advance for this one!! 💖
Thank you so much for another excellent review of the life of one of history's most important women. I agree that Margaret had nothing to do with the death of Edward V and his brother, not only because it was not feasible, but because Richard III clearly had the most to gain from their disappearance. As you pointed out, the benefit to young Henry Tudor is only apparent in hindsight.
Thanks Ann. Yes, I think a lot of people get a bit waylaid by hindsight in this case and forget that there really wasn't any benefit to Margaret in offing the Princes in the summer of 1483.
It would make sense if the Princes in the Tower met their end after or during the attempt to rescue them. It would be interesting to know more about that rescue plot. I think the desperate and unpleasant acts of Richard III were done to prevent the kingdom from entering another chapter of the Wars of the Roses. He knew a boy king was a liability and a target for others who would attempt to grab the crown through violence. Richard had the experience and will to be king and he had a male heir. Life was short and there was political unrest in those days. Having the princes out of the way cleared the path for Richard's son to become king if Richard died or was killed. If Richard died and the princes were alive and available, Richard's son would likely have inherited a mutinous kingdom with continued rebellions and battles. I believe Richard truly cared about England and that he was not ruled by greed and revenge. Maybe King Charles will be open to allowing some royal remains to be forensically examined. The bones presumed to be the princes would be one project. Another would be Prince Arthur Tudor's remains to see if it could be determined what killed him and severely sickened his wife Catherine. It would be a positive thing for society if Arthur died of Sweating Sickness and a microorganism could be identified. For all we know, the causative agent could still be lurking somewhere deep in a wetland. The last thing the world wants now is another deadly pandemic. We could learn a great deal if we knew what sickness took Arthur's life. Some of the old time diseases -- many of which are now prevented through vaccinations -- left survivors weakened and damaged. Catherine of Aragon seems to have survived whatever killed Arthur but is it possible that her health was damaged in such a way that that led to difficulty in producing healthy children? One description of Arthur's condition was that his "outward parts" went inward. I assume that describes his genital area. It is not a far leap to wonder if the mystery illness damaged reproductive organs. Although my first thought about Arthur's outward parts receding, is that he was probably severely dehydrated from the illness. (I have my doubts that Arthur died of The Sweat as it was the wrong time of year for that scourge which seemed to have a pattern of emerging in early summer and stopping in the fall.)
this is probably the most balanced take on it and what i believe as well. Was killing the princes a heinous act? of course it was, but to someone like richard it was that or more war, in which even more of his family and allies would be killed. I doubt it was what he wanted, but clearly declaring heirs illegitimate (or them actually 100% being so) wasn't enough to prevent their succession if they had enough support The trouble with the remains is no one actually knows which skeletons belong to the two princes or where they ended up, tey literally vanished dead or alive. They had no funeral and were not officially buried. King Charles has allowed the exhumation and DNA testing of several potential child skeletons that could be the princes, but we don't know if they've found any positive matches now and i have to wonder whether ancestors so far removed are even able to be identified by DNA?
I have hoped that King Charles will do just that, especially after King Richard was found in that parking lot, it seems like all treachery though, hiding the insidious in plain sight.. poetic justice in a way then, prove me wrong lol
I am glad someone is standing up for Richard III as I am from Yorkshire and have always been a Yorkist, and after researching my family, it turns out my family were too, going right back to the rebellion of Henry 'Hotspur) Percy. If Richard did kill the Princes, it would be reluctantly and for the good of the country. Margaret Beaufort is not always a sympathetic character, but she had a hard life. I do not think she killed them either, as she adored her only son and I don't think she would have had the heart to deprive another mother, even her enemy, of her children.
A very good account of an extremely complex royal era. There are so many videos and voices (which often grate on the ear). However I loved the way you told it. The pace and tone were perfect!
Hooray! I've been waiting for this for awhile. You've definitely convinced me though it will be hard to get the image of the mad woman from the Gregory universe out of my head. Thank you for resurrecting Margaret for me. I had no idea that Catherine of Valois was the mother of Jasper and Edmund Tudor so thanks for that bit of info. Thank you for another wonderful video on the life of such a pivotal person in English history.
Thanks Bev. Glad you enjoyed it. Yes, best not to pay too much attention to Ms Gregory if in search of real history. She's fun for a bit of light reading though.
@@bevinboulder5039 Only really the Owen Tudor bio by Terry Breverton that I'm reading, I'm afraid, & ofc their relationship is only a part of it- I kinda just picked up on stuff from everywhere? Actually, I heard about the book from a great yt vid about Owen, that you might like to watch- it's on a tiny & massively underrated Welsh history channel called Wynford Emanuel; he's a lovely old Welsh guy, & films at the beautiful locations of the stories- & always provides references, like this book! I've never found a video on Catherine with more info on her than what's in her wiki page tho, sadly.
Oh god - even my old brain is a bit addled from this opening 8 minutes. PLEASE would / could you recommend any book where I can follow this Plantagenet / Tudor crossover history? Always seeking knowledge! The subject is, indeed, as you say, 'bonkers'. But as ever, thanks for the Olympian effort on this. Always a pleasure, never a chore. ☺
The book I used the most for this video is a bio of Margaret by Michael Jones and another author whose name escapes me at the moment. It's linked in the description box though.
I am now listening to this a 2nd time....Man, there are sooooo many details. What an interesting person. And, sorry, she was just a 12 year old girl, when she was given to a 26 year old man. I do not care if it was the custom of the day, she is remarkable for having lived through THAT.
I'm not an expert historian like HC but I believe Margaret was young even by royal standards for this time period. She had nobody in her life who was truly looking out for her best interests, and as an astoundingly wealthy heiress, she was an appealing target. I'm sure there were many contemporary figures who thought her marriage was not appropriate, even though they had different concepts of childhood/adulthood to ours.
The comment above is correct, while 12 year olds of both sexes would frequently be wed, these were almost always proxy weddings, and the couples wouldn’t live together until they were at least 14 or 15. Though still incredibly young, it is close enough to full adulthood as to not be outright disgusting. It was also more common for a young woman to at least be sixteen before her marriage to a much older man was consummated, which though again is considered too young now, it is a common age for young women to reach physical maturation. 12 years old even in that day was very much a child still. Many considered the consummation of such young weddings to be shameful, though political figures through time and place prove very willing to do shameful things for power.
@@DannyDevitoOffical-TrustMeBro Well, yes and no. 12 wasn't considered a "child". Childhood wasn't a recognized condition, really, especially for Royals of breeding age.
@@widowrumstrypze9705 The issue is with people in this comment section is that they use too much of their own feelings and make up stuff to ignore the fact that this was normal during the Middle Ages that boys and girls were considered young adult man and woman at the age of 12 and not that it would be ok today but it’s how it was during that era but many people use their woke 21st century modern mentality to change the facts and history.
Thank you so much for laying out so beautifully, just how preposterous the whole “Margaret having the boys killed” plot line is. I really did enjoy the program series based on the Philippa Gregory books, but when I showed the series to my parents, I had to keep pausing it on numerous occasions to correct for its inaccuracies.😁 And the one element which really irked me the most, was just how much of a villain they contort Margaret Beaufort into. These were real people and they deserve better than to have their memories slandered and their names dragged through the mud like that. I think that Gregory must be a Ricardian; for I cannot think of any other valid reason to malign Margaret Beaufort so.
Love this series!thankyou! It makes far more sense for Richard to be responsible for the boys death. He had already been implicated in the murder of Henry VI and following the Plantagenets pattern of “usurp then kill” (Richard II, Henry VI) this would have seemed almost necessary. Certainly if it wasn’t him he would have investigated their disappearance just to prove it wasn’t him. Sadly the evidence and opportunity all seems to point to Richard, and definitely not Margaret.
Thank you. Yes, I agree. While I realise we're never going to get absolute proof of his involvement, there's a lot more pointing at him than anyone else.
Exactly. With other kings who were usurped then died, we're happy enough to say the guy who usurped them also had them killed- Henry IV killed Richard II, Edward IV killed Henry VI, even though it's at least _technically_ possible they were innocent- but for Richard III killing Edward V & Prince Richard, we need goddamn DNA evidence?!
@@beth7935 don’t forget that any accounts of the boy’s murder are written off as fiction or loving accounts to strengthen the Tudor claim. They seem to forget that one of the men who gathered the information about what happened was executed because he refused to do what the Tudor demanded of him. They way those people paint him and the way his life ended don’t match up
Aww, you can still just listen to the audio at work though can't you? Sadly there's not really any money in podcasts without sponsors and a lot of my videos rely on you being able to see what I'm talking about, particularly the art history ones.
I love lady Margaret Beaufort for loyality and her intelligent maneuvering which aided in keeping her son safe and finally making him the king of England. A real epitome of motherhood.
I was lost about 30 seconds into the video, but couldn’t stop watching. What a crazy time in history. Proof that there is likely no time or place in all of human existence that was or will be perfect.
I absolutely agree with you on Rick 3 and the Princes, he really had the biggest motive for their disappearance, and the fact that he became so unpopular in such a short amount of time, proves that people at least believed the rumour that he orchestrated the whole thing.
Just found your channel!! I love it! Thank you so much for your excellent research skills and clear presentation! It's wonderful not to fight through dramatic music to hear the narrative! Have a great day!
I love your war of the roses play list. I could listen to it over and over it’s so complex and compelling! I understand that “might is right”/so who ever could hold the throne wins. What I don’t understand is why a claim going through a female descendent out ranks one going through an unbroken male line? I figured people of the time would think the unbroken male line would be superior.
Yes, might was indeed right in most cases. Regarding descent; boys were indeed preferred, but the daughter of an older son could be preferred to the descendants of a younger son. That's why Anne Mortimer's claim was so good. Her Dad (or was it her grandfather? I'm writing this off the top of my head and haven't double checked) was John of Gaunt's older brother.
It is easier to prove parentage when run through the maternal line, especially when births were attended by many to attest said child was born of said woman. Who could prove they were the only man to have relations to any woman? Always been problematical!
I think a lot of people commenting that they had never heard of alternative theories regarding the responsible party for the untimely end of the Princes in the Tower are probably American, or at least non-English/UK (as am I). I, however, went on a War of the Roses/Margaret Beaufort binge a few years ago, almost exclusively on TH-cam and heard the theories regarding Margaret possibly (though not probably) being involved. You can find some quality docs on her on YT. A lot of the theories come from King Richard fans (Ricardians? I can't remember their official title). He had what I would consider a bit of a renaissance in terms of reputation. He's still not the favorite king, but I'd say he's not as universally reviled as he once was. The peak may have been around the time, and in the time after his remains were discovered under that car park. Watching a few of those documentaries were incredibly interesting as well. For the record, I don't believe MB arranged the princes' death and was an incredibly interesting figure. She was fierce because she had to be and lesser people would have crumbled or just played it safe, with no political maneuvering under the same circumstances. Advantageous marriages, calculated risks, staying involved in her son's life, even if she was not in his physical presence until he was king...quite the feat.
Yes, some of the Ricardians are rather partial to the 'Margaret the murderer' theory. Each to their own of course, but I don't see any real historical evidence for it myself. I'm with you. She was fierce because she needed to be, but I think there were lines she didn't cross and child murder was one of them.
That's a tumultuous life, the poor woman 😢 By the sounds of it she was cautious and savvy, murdering the princes in the tower would have been very reckless for her (it would have turned almost every faction in England against her- Elizabeth woodville is obvious but Richard should have been enraged that someone had murdered his nephews who were supposedly under his protection), I jsut don't see the motive for it (other than retrospect where it became key to Henry gaining the throne, but like you said at the time that would have been a very unlikely outcome to bet on) and I don't think she'd had an oppotunity to, the princes were under the care of king richard, theoretically they should have been some of the safest people in the land. I wonder whether it's some bizarre form of misogyny that wants the women of history who coped with the world to have been more scheming?
You make an interesting point about misogyny. The 'theory' that Margaret killed/had the boys killed has been popularised by Philippa Gregory's work and Ms Gregory is obviously a woman herself, but perhaps some misogyny amongst others has helped it along?
I doubt it’s misogyny, I believe it’s far more likely that people just love the extra dramatic flair of some secret conspiracy from someone who wouldn’t have been expected to be involved. People love a good dirty scheme, and the way Richard handled things was entirely without good dramatic flair or room for juicy theories to be thrown around by those who love to treat real history as gossipy fun.
Thank you. Yes, I just can't see Margaret having any real motive or opportunity, or Richard failing to mention it and essentially take the blame for the boys' disappearance himself. It ruined his reputation at home and abroad.
@@HistoryCalling Couldn’t agree more, if there was even an inkling, Id figure Richard would use it to cover his own tracks! I almost picture a Jacquetta witchcraft trial sort of scenario if it had been an open suspicion from everyone.
As a side note, I'm a portrait artist and it really does astound me that the art of capturing somebody's likeness in this day and age had not been perfected a little more. I know with Holbein etc a little later, they were supposed to idealise their sitters but the likenesses are still quite rudimentary. I'm now intrigued, as an avid history fan and an artist, to look into this a little more. I'd love to hear your opinion on the matter. With thanks, as always a fabulous video - from Australia 🙂
Strange isn’t it? They made sculpted things so well and human like, yet paintings seem so flat. Even da Vinci, his sketches seem more lifelike than the Mona Lisa is, she looks like a person but also not very specific of a person. It’s interesting how they wanted that style instead of something hyperrealistic for sure!
@@stephsmanicshenanigans8017 I mean yes but If you look at selfies/photos(the modern likeness if you will)of high profile people in society now they are also face tuned in accordance to modern day standards and are not a "likeness" of the person at all but rather a reflection of society today a vague depiction of an person, it should be noted that the face tuned versions are put out by the person themselves. Today however there with social meda and how everyone now has a camera other non edited liknesses can be taken. But when it comes to the person putting out the image the modern likness is not realistic due to filters face tune so on, similarly with historical images elizabeth the I was wellknown for destroying portraits that where unflattering of her. She could do this because no real likeness of her could be taken without her concent.The likenesses of people have always and will always be censored just in different ways to various degrees of success, In my opinion anyhow (pardon my spelling and grammer please im sure it's horrific😂)
I have been watching your videos and very much enjoying your respectful yet very entertaining recitation of history. I have enjoyed them so much i had to subscribe to your channel. Thank you so much and please keep up the great work.😮😊
I've been eagerly anticipating this video and am excited for part 2. Having been to Pembroke castle and having visited edmunds tomb myself I honestly believe she is one of the most remarkable women in history. I hadn't heard that she'd been accused of killing the princes.....she could barely keep her own son alive, what makes people think she'd have the power and position to murder a king in waiting?! Excellent video as always, you should do a historical women tier list at some point....I jest of course
I think you had a very good point. If Richard III was innocent, why didn't he try to blame someone else? He had so much motive to get them out of the way.
Yes, I think that's quite telling and I agree with Edith that it's a little odd too that he didn't place the blame elsewhere. Maybe he didn't want anyone looking at it too hard and asking questions of specific people? Of course he could have blamed it on Buckingham once the latter was deceased, but maybe Richard drew the line (weirdly) at blaming others for his misdeeds?
What an incredibly convoluted story the history of the Throne is. I think I pretty much understand but my head is spinning! Your explanation is the most cohesive I've heard though.
Fantastic video. I absolutely love your videos of the ladies of The Wars of the Roses. I have never subscribed to the view that Margaret had anything to do with the deaths of Edward V and his brother, so you didn't need to convince me, but I did really enjoy (as I always do) your detailed examination and analysis of the evidence. Please keep them coming
Thank you so much. It is indeed a silly theory, but I struggle to convince people sometimes. Gregory's fictionalised account of Margaret has done a lot of damage to the real woman's reputation.
I was reading this Alternative history wiki about Mary I and you wouldn't believe what name she gave her only son-Henry. You see, in this ATL Henry became king of England and Ireland on October 19,1564 and was formally crowned on February 2,1565 at the age of age. He was the fifth Tudor monarch to be crowned king of England and Ireland, though his Royal house was officially 'Habsburg-Tudor' he dislike his father and so only ever claimed to be Tudor, not A habsburg.
🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩 Wow! I love Margaret, & I've finally bought & started reading a bio of her (Uncrowned Queen by Nicola Tallis), & days later I have a brilliant video on her from my fave history youtuber?!?! And another one to come?! Thankyou!! This was fascinating & I learnt lots, & it'll be really useful to backup & cross-reference with the book so I learn it all better. I agree with all your points about why the claim that Margaret had the princes killed is utter rubbish. The baseless slander against her makes me want to throw hands, & it's great to have another video on yt presenting the ACTUAL FACTS & EVIDENCE that prove she had nothing to with it. The statue of Henry VII at Pembroke Castle is beautiful- I've never seen it before, so thanks for including it, plus the Staffords' descent from Thomas of Woodstock. I know the rest, but not their section yet- 2 executed Dukes of Buckingham in a row & 2 Humphrey Staffords in a row do NOT help, lol.
The facts prove she had nothing to do with the deaths of the Princes, and from an emotional standpoint, I just cannot imagine her being willing to spill the blood of children. She was at her core a mother above all, and if anything it seems she'd be more inclined to help keep them safe until the oldest one could claim his crown. Both because her maternal inclinations and her drive to protect her own son (same inclinations really).
I don’t feel Margaret had any part in murdering the young King and his brother the Prince. There was no reason nor no way for her to do so. Fascinating video…thank you.
Looking back 400 years on my own ancestry in the US , I only found one instance in which a woman got married this early . According to records ,my great grandmother's mother was born to a 13 year old .Her father was 26 at the time . I can only surmize that he married her at 12 ,took her from Kentucky to Illinois where my great granny's mother Delilah was born. Today it sounds disgusting
I studied history at uni, and one lecturer did make a good point. He said if Richard killed the princes surely he would have said they died of natural causes (obviously more common in that period!) and given them a funeral and made it very public - to further legitimise himself as the only option for the crown, and also prevent pretenders etc. (which cropped up later in HVII reign). I am not sure what I think to be honest, just thought this was an interesting take!
@@emilybarclay8831 I suppose unless you murder them in such a way as to not cause very obvious injuries etc. Just thought it was an interesting point. I’m not sure what to think at this point, though the only real one with motive is Richard III.
@@elizabeths8308 the only way I could think of to do that would be poison which would work but it was usually looked down on as a ‘woman’s weapon’ but then again murdering children tends to be looked down upon so who knows. All I know is that if there’s absolutely any chance Elizabeth Woodville even remotely expected Margaret of killing her sons there’s zero chance she would have married her daughter to Henry VI. Plus, the same act that made the princes in the tower illegitimate made Elizabeth illegitimate and if she was helping Richard why would Margaret marry her son to a woman she helped make illegitimate? Like you said, Richard was the only one with motive and the only one who benefitted from the deaths of the princes. Margaret and Henry for that matter would never tie themselves to the Woodvilles if they were conspiring with Richard. Henry retroactively re-legitimised his predecessor Edward V which would been undoing his own actions if he was on Richard’s side
I think your lecturer had a very good point. If they were poisoned, smothered or even strangled, any marks could have been effectively hidden with clothing and any lying in state could have been very brief - just a day to show a sufficient number of people that they were dead.
the question still remains, if someone else offed the boys, why didn't Richard know? And if he knew why didn't he do anything about it? If he didn't have them killed he at the very least failed to keep them safe. My own suspicion is that he took the "least said soonest mended" approach.
Have I convinced you that Margaret didn’t have anything to do with the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower? Let me know below. You can also find me on:
BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG
Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/
Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
Yes you have 😊
Excellent. Thank you :-)
I haven’t even started the video yet, and I’ve never believed that. It just makes no sense whatsoever. I’m excited to watch the video still.
No.
Yes
Even by contemporary standards, Margaret was deemed too young to consummate a marriage. It’s one of the reasons Edmund Tudor was disliked. He was seen as greedy for wanting her fortune, consummating the marriage so quickly to make the union “official”, and having no care for young Margaret.
Even Margaret’s own physician who attended the birth sounded horrified that such a young girl, who was apparently small for even a 13 year old, was giving birth, and was shocked that both mother and child survived. His account certainly supports that idea that this was not normal for the time
For a long time now Henry VIII has been the figure in history I would most like to slap about, but his deplorable grandfather is now second place. 😤
Margret truly had no choice but to go all in. And by god did she do just that. She’s probably one of the most badass people in history. She went from a child mother with no power to the Queen Mother. What a legend
I couldn't agree more :-)
She is my 29th great grandmother. I can see where I get my drive and ambition from, I have many of the royal lines in my DNA. But so far I have just heard about her. I'm an American but with high percentage of England, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Scotland families. I hope to see more videos detailing the happenings of their lives as well. Thank you for the positive vibe concerning her.
@@InTheGarden1960 you have nothing to do with her don't thank them for how they feel about her... You're so far removed from her it barely counts, if it counts at all
No one knows who killed the princes I saw programme that looked into the case against Richard and they did it liked a modern day case with judge and jury and they could not find any evidence that Richard did kill them and the jury threw it out as it would be in a modern court so that convinced me, also Margaret and Henry the seventh had motive as well also Shakespeare did not help with his play written for Elizabeth history is written by the winners is true the Tudors blamed Richard for everything so we will never know
@@tracymcardle1236 Richard had no motive? He had them declared illegitimate and got a throne out of it. Becoming king is literally the best motive
We always hear about how young people were when they started their families in this time, but the thought of 12 is absolutely unthinkable to me. Being 16 and having your child taken from you, and unaware that the one thing that you’re expected to do (have more kids) is not going to happen? The fear she must have lived in for most of her life.
So many dramas make her seem like a plotter and backhanded and just down right terrible, and if you just watch those, it can be convincing with how dedicated she was to her son. But like you said, there’s no historical evidence that she spent her entire life plotting for the throne. It’s much more likely that she was just a mom who wanted the very best for her child
I know. It was a very rough life in many ways. We know she got a happy ending of sorts with her son, but they lost so much time together and of course neither of them knew that it would work out in the end. Talk about stressful.
@@bumblephee96 Funny, isn't it, how often women who managed to make a real difference to the course of events are later portrayed as evil and conniving?
That is probably why she only ever had the one kid. The pregnancy and birth at such a young age screwed up her body.
Even though the age of consent set by the Catholic Church at the time was 12 for girls full marriages ie ones that were actually consummated were rare before the late teens early twenties. It was not uncommon for arranged marriages to have one or more proxy ceremonies before the actually wedding with both parties after which the marriage still would not consider fully done until consummation. Some couples that married younger waited a few years to consummate or if there was concern about the stability of the match there would likely be some form of public bedding then the issue was tabled for a couple of years unless the need for a heir became pressing. They knew it was potentially dangerous and high ranking matches took a lot to arrange.
Margaret Beaufort is one of my absolute favorite historical figures. Tenacity, strategy, resilience...she gets overshadowed so often but she's so admiable.
Same here. Just think what she and her granddaughter Elizabeth could have done together. World domination I think :-)
She must have been both brilliant and very strong to survive as she did and become a kingmaker.
Margaret Beaufort was definitely an incredibly lucky and savvy woman to survive all those seemingly insurmountable challenges to change the course of the British monarchy. Amazing story!
I know. She and Elizabeth I would have had a lot to talk about.
@HistoryCalling Absolutely! The sheer volatility of life for most people, never mind those who are within reach of the throne!
She wasn't lucky. She was a political genius.
@drkmwinters she must have had some divine protection and guidance somehow... she was extremely religious after all.
I wrote about the Wars of the Roses for my MA dissertation this year, and for the first half of my Tudor chapter I focused on Lady Margaret Beaufort, how she became an apt political player in Edward IV’s reign, worked toward having Henry returned from exile and pardoned and then her political manoeuvring in having her son put forth as a rival claimant to the throne.
Dan Jones also credits her in his The Hollow Crown book on the wars if you wanted to do some more reading on her.
She really is a fascinating character. I haven't read the Hollow Crown yet, but maybe I'll get to it at some point in the future.
@@HistoryCalling She really is a figure I think should be written about more. Henry VII would not have made it even back to the English coast the first time if not for her.
Seriously underrated figure in this period, along with Margaret of Anjou.
@@aidanrogers4438 I agree it's the two Margarets' that effectively won the contest for their house 🥀. Just by staying alive when all seemed lost and keeping up the struggle, one after the other. Lady Margaret's relatives were strewn about the casuality list about her, the Beauforts, Staffords, Welles'.
Christmastide 1497 and it could have ended tragically and there been no Tudor dynasty. Margaret, her son and daughter-in-law visiting a ramshackle Richmond Palace. Engulfed in flames, blazing roof, the two ladies ran, Henry too, seconds before a blazing roof-timber fell.
The People Profiles have just done an excellent profile.
@@HistoryCalling The newest biography of Margaret is Uncrowned Queen: The Life of Margaret Beaufort, Mother of the Tudors by Nicola Tallis. She has also written Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey and Elizabeth's Rival: The Tumultuous Life of the Countess of Leicester: The Romance and Conspiracy that Threatened Queen Elizabeth's Court. I have all of these and I think Tallis is an excellent biographer.
The Hollow Crown is good. The Bloody Crown is a textbook compendium of the WotR.
Thank you for showcasing these powerhouse women behind the Wars of the Roses. Their intelligence and the lengths they go to protect their family, taking every advantage of every opportunity to keep their lives and the lives of their children is treated often as a footnote in history, but was truly monumental in the war. The wars of the roses has always been to me, in a way, a pointless war with too many lives lost and so much family infighting, leaving the rest of the world to be permanently confused about the motives, upheavals, who truly is the “winner” after all the destruction, and why everyone is named Henry, Richard, or Edward.
You're very welcome and I'm absolutely with you on how confusing the names were. There were 3 Princes of Wales called Edward in the space of 15 years for instance and two were alive at the same time for a while. Total nightmare for the historian.
@@HistoryCalling I rewatch the genealogy in every of your Wars of the Roses videos. I always say, “Oh, ok! That’s right, I get it now!” Then, it’s shortly followed by, “Wait…What?” Haha. And it never helps when people switch sides and mix through marriage and are related multiple times over. Even the ladies have some of the same names. How do you historians keep all this straight? I imagine the exams were a nightmare.
I recently discovered your channel, by the way, and I absolutely love it. I have binged every video you’ve made and love sharing the information with my family and friends. I am from the US and the drama of the monarchy is so juicy! Haha. When you shared the letter of little Catherine asking for other Catherines to donate for a proper memorial for Catherine of Aragon, I cried. I shared it immediately with my husband who was also teary-eyed. I have a friend who lives in the UK and shared videos with her; she said she never learned about Oliver Cromwell in school. We were discussing the Crown Jewels at the time and I mentioned the destruction and sale of many of the pieces. I told her about you and your videos and how much I have learned. We are all hooked on your videos now!
I'd not heard of Margaret (been a bit lazy with my history for a bit) and so saw the Netflix series based on Gregory's books that make her out not just to be cautious and intelligent, but a religious maniac, excusing killing the princes with the religious fervour that her son should be on the throne. You make complete sense and it changes how one looks at Margaret entirely. Savvy, strategic, strong, protective - yes. Murderess, no. And, 12 when pregnant. I can't even imagine. She had to be 30 at 13.
Yes, you definitely convinced me, HC! A spectacular entry in this series. I'm counting the days to the second chapter. You rock! 🙏🏼
THANK YOU SO MUCH STEPHEN. Yes, I just couldn't fit everything into one video. She simply did too much!
There's more? 😱 Am still watching #1 !! 😂
This will get you up to 1485. I couldn't get her time as My Lady the King's Mother into this video.
I have never heard about Margaret being accused of such a heinous act. I’m glad you brought it up and explained it. I’m convinced she didn’t have anything to do with it. You always do such a beautiful job telling history I really enjoy your channel! I’ve been watching/listening for a over a year. Absolutely love it. Thank you. ❤
Of course she did! She didn’t want anyone else to make a claim over her son after all she had done to get him there as horrid as it is unfortunately that is what was done
@@kylieknight2365Did you even listen to the video? Margaret may have had a motive, but what about means and opportunity?
@@kylieknight2365I agree,I also think it was very much to her advantage,and she was capable of many things
@@kylieknight2365
of course she did NOT
Read the books by Phillipa Gregory. ❤
That family tree is so mixed together that it’s almost soap opera worthy! I have never believed Margaret was responsible for the Princes in the Tower; like you explained, it just didn’t benefit her or her son at that time.
Great video on what could have been a very confusing subject! I look forward to next week!
Thanks Cassi. Yes, the family trees are headache inducing. I bet some of them even forgot how they were related to one another sometimes :-) See you next week.
Me too. I know Margaret desperately wanted to protect her son, and hindsight is 20/20, but things just didn't add up. As it was explained, it wasn't going to benefit Margaret OR her son Henry. If anything, it would almost certainly RUIN them. It could've even resulted in at least Lady Margaret being executed.
Philippa Gregory also had some other weird theories in her fiction books, from what I've read (I did not read any of her books directly). For example, that Anne Boleyn truly did sleep with her brother in order to give the king a male heir and that Richard III wanted to get rid of his wife and marry his niece Elizabeth of York. 😝
I'm so excited for this video, Margaret Beaufort is just so badass and it's hard not to like her with how she reclaimed her life after such tragedies as a small child
I think the same thing :-)
The maternal mortality rate skyrockets the younger the mother. Her suffering, not to mention what amounts to a rape, would have have been traumatic. Edmund makes my skin crawl. Amazing woman.
⚘ Beautifully researched, and YES. I DID NOT KNOW that the remaining Woodville brothers were at Bosworth with Henry Tudor. To me, this speaks volumes. After decades of thinking in terms of motive and laying the young boys' disappearance at Ms. Beaufort's feet - you have, indeed, convinced me that I was wrong. My goodness. What a sad tragedy, the young princes. AGAIN, A STANDING OVATION AND BRAVA! to you for the outstanding research and this exceptional historic lesson.
Aww, I'm blushing over here. Thank you very much 😊
Thank you so much! I’m a brazilian History teacher, but so in love with English History! Margareth was a fortress! 🙌🏻
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
Thanks! Margaret Beaufort is my favourite historical figure. Good job.
THANK YOU SO MUCH JOY for such a kind donation to the channel. I love Margaret too. :-)
Agree with you 100% about Richard III - am always amazed by historian Matthew Lewis' arguments (or "IF" as i prefer to call him) Never have i heard so many "ifs" in my life. In addition to your cogent summary would add that all the surviving contemporary and near contemporary sources all assume that Richard had the boyz done away with. Dr Starkey turned up the interesting fact that Henry VII and Elizabeth of York both attended all of Tyrell's trial which suggests that they wanted to know what had happened to the boys. Lastly while Shakespeare is often dismissed as a Tudor apologist, his grandfather fought in the Wars of the Roses. He's sufficiently near to the events to have painted a portrait of Richard that everyone at the time recognised. Moreover a portrait that is backed by the man who could so swiftly and brutally turn on Hastings and on Woodville. "Why I can smile and murder while I smile" That dish of strawberries he brought to the council meeting. before he executed Hastings without trial. The convivial supper with Woodville. Richard, the smiling assassin.. Lastly there is the fact that pretty much everyone deserted Richard on the battlefield. Recent evidence suggests that even the men of York who were supposedly so "heavy hearted": did not send that many actual troops to support him.
😂 "If"!! ❤ Omg that's excellent! 😅 The proof of desertion and the opposition's distain for R III can be found in the forensic evidence of injuries discovered on his skeletal remains. Heavy duty!
You are the most excellent storyteller of history. Your graceful diplomacy is admirable and your knowledge unparalleled. I always enjoy your well-researched content, but this one is a standout. Well done! Oh, and Margaret had nothing to do with the York boys; definitely Richard III’s machinations!
I agree. It always annoys me when people ascribe motives to historical figures that only make sense in light of much later events that could not have been predicted at the time. At the time the boys in the Tower disappeared, Margaret could not have expected that Richard III's wife and son would die. Richard was in his early thirties and looked to be able to hold the throne for the foreseeable future.
Yes, it really didn't benefit her at that time to take such a risk. Later in the year however, when Richard's reputation had sunk, Buckingham was willing to desert him and Elizabeth Woodville was looking for an ally, it was a whole other matter.
This is an excellent presentation that held my interest all along. The brisk but empathetic narration and the graphics really helped in this complex subject. Thanks.
I’ve been reading about Margaret Beaufort so this video was a bit of serendipity for me. What an amazing lady! She pretty much put the men who were participating in the Cousins’ War to shame with her sheer grit, political savvy and tenacity. In fact, I personally believe that she would’ve been a much better queen than Edward IV, Henry VI and even her own son Henry VII. I believe that Elizabeth I was the closest thing to having her great-grandmother on the throne of England.
To be a fly on any wall in the 1600’s to 1800’s would be wild. So many secrets, everywhere! I just found your channel and love it! Great job.
You convinced me she couldn’t have been involved through all your other splendid work to date. I struggle sometimes to keep everyone in British history straight but you have a way of helping me keep all the different people with the same damn name separate. I read the title and was like that makes no sense why would Henry VIIs mom want the Princes dead that doesn’t make any sense at all. I knew who all the major players were and how they were related all thanks to you.
I've been studying the Wars of the Roses for about two weeks now and your video is the first to do a clear breakdown of the line of succession that led to this war. Subscribed.
Ooooh finally, I have been waiting for Margaret for a long time! She is also one of my favourite historical figures. I admire her greatly and I'm so happy to see such a long video by you ❤
Thanks Teresa. More on Margaret next week too!
I so appreciate your historically accurate videos. I’ve been binging for about a week now! I can’t get enough! 😂 thank you so much for the work you put in to these videos! ❤❤❤
Thank you so much. I wish I could get more to binge watch my content :-)
A 38 minute History Calling video on Margaret Beaufort? 😍😍 Thank you!
Yes, it was a whopper. The second 'half' next week is shorter.
You are the best historian and story teller. Thank you for sharing your talent.
Margaret Beaufort is certainly one of my favourite women in history. The notion that she had anything to do with the death of the two young princes in the tower is simply one of history's fake news.
Margaret was a resilient, savvy survivor, who probably had a very strong personality. Her importance in Tudor history is often either overlooked or misunderstood.
I am looking forward to next week's video, covering Margaret's role in consolidating the new Tudor dynasty
Thanks Stephanie. Not long to wait now :-)
My happy place on Friday evening!! Thank you for the history treat.
My pleasure. Thank you for watching and commenting. :-)
Well done! You have given this extraordinary person the recognition she deserves.
Thanks David. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
I didn’t need convincing. However thank you for posting such an extremely well explained video.
After reading Sharon Penman’s Sunne In Splendour about 30 years ago I went through a phase of thinking Richard was the best thing since sliced bread. Then I started reading the non fiction accounts of the Wars of the Roses, Richard and the history of the time. I went back to thinking if the boys were murdered that it was overwhelmingly more likely Richard was responsible.
I have a more nuanced view of Richard these days - potentially a very good king, but also extremely ruthless. The two not being mutually exclusive.
Yes, that's true actually. One could be an effective leader, but a terrible person. People actually looked back on Henry VIII's reign with great fondness after he died for instance and talked about Good King Hal. Probably most of them had never met him ...
I’ve always believed Richard was responsible for the princes deaths. Margaret was too savvy to have those princes killed.
These stories are worthy of a soap opera! I can hardly keep all the characters straight no matter how many times I hear the same stories. It is interesting to hear them from different peoples lives. Thanks for another intriguing video! ❤
Thanks Lisa. Yes, it is hard to keep them all straight, especially with so many repeating names.
and actually, what would she gain? Richard's heir was still alive; all that would have been achieved is exactly what happened - Uncle Richard on the throne.
Richard isn’t the murderer. Is there any proof they were murdered?
It's a good question I'm not sure if it was Richard I don't think Margaret was responsible for the murder either (I could be wrong about them,) I don't think we'll ever know what happen to the princes. I feel sorry for them they were just kids.@@srkh8966
@@srkh8966is there any proof they weren’t murdered by him?
You have convincing arguments for the innocence of Margaret Beaufort in the deaths of the princes. Thank you for your wonderful videos.
This was an excellent presentation. I have never quite understood the war of the roses. Yes Richard III killed the princes.
Yes!! We're finally getting the Margaret Beaufort episode!! I typically don't like to have historical faves, but Margaret is one figure that I admire. She went from pawn and victim to the mother of one of the most famous royal dynasties in Europe.
I didn't need convincing that she had the York boys killed. If she was even a possibility at the time, why on earth didn't Richard try to shift the blame to her? Especially once it became known that it was her son who was trying to take the throne? It would have been a useful piece of political propaganda, and the fact that it was never used speaks volumes (or even whispered about, from what it sounds like). And since Elizabeth Woodville was working with Margaret, that says a lot too, like you said.
Yes, there's really no evidence that she had either a true motive or opportunity to have the children killed. I know some people say that she had the most to gain, but that's only when you apply historical hindsight. In the summer of 1483 she had no reason to think Henry would ever be King. The idea would have seemed pretty ridiculous with Edward V, the Duke of York, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, his son, the Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Buckingham and even Edward IV's daughters all alive and ahead of Henry in the succession.
Ahhhhh I’ve been waiting for this one!! Just a couple more hours until I’m done with work and can watch the full thing in earnest. Lady Margaret Beaufort is one of my all-time favorite historical figures as well and you are one of my all-time favorite TH-camrs, so thank you in advance for this one!! 💖
Thank you so much Shannon. I hope you enjoy it. Have a good rest of the day at work.
Thank you so much for another excellent review of the life of one of history's most important women. I agree that Margaret had nothing to do with the death of Edward V and his brother, not only because it was not feasible, but because Richard III clearly had the most to gain from their disappearance. As you pointed out, the benefit to young Henry Tudor is only apparent in hindsight.
Thanks Ann. Yes, I think a lot of people get a bit waylaid by hindsight in this case and forget that there really wasn't any benefit to Margaret in offing the Princes in the summer of 1483.
Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SUCH A KIND DONATION to the channel Okie Jammer. I hope you enjoyed hearing all about Margaret.
It would make sense if the Princes in the Tower met their end after or during the attempt to rescue them. It would be interesting to know more about that rescue plot.
I think the desperate and unpleasant acts of Richard III were done to prevent the kingdom from entering another chapter of the Wars of the Roses. He knew a boy king was a liability and a target for others who would attempt to grab the crown through violence. Richard had the experience and will to be king and he had a male heir. Life was short and there was political unrest in those days. Having the princes out of the way cleared the path for Richard's son to become king if Richard died or was killed. If Richard died and the princes were alive and available, Richard's son would likely have inherited a mutinous kingdom with continued rebellions and battles. I believe Richard truly cared about England and that he was not ruled by greed and revenge.
Maybe King Charles will be open to allowing some royal remains to be forensically examined. The bones presumed to be the princes would be one project. Another would be Prince Arthur Tudor's remains to see if it could be determined what killed him and severely sickened his wife Catherine. It would be a positive thing for society if Arthur died of Sweating Sickness and a microorganism could be identified. For all we know, the causative agent could still be lurking somewhere deep in a wetland. The last thing the world wants now is another deadly pandemic.
We could learn a great deal if we knew what sickness took Arthur's life. Some of the old time diseases -- many of which are now prevented through vaccinations -- left survivors weakened and damaged. Catherine of Aragon seems to have survived whatever killed Arthur but is it possible that her health was damaged in such a way that that led to difficulty in producing healthy children? One description of Arthur's condition was that his "outward parts" went inward. I assume that describes his genital area. It is not a far leap to wonder if the mystery illness damaged reproductive organs. Although my first thought about Arthur's outward parts receding, is that he was probably severely dehydrated from the illness. (I have my doubts that Arthur died of The Sweat as it was the wrong time of year for that scourge which seemed to have a pattern of emerging in early summer and stopping in the fall.)
this is probably the most balanced take on it and what i believe as well. Was killing the princes a heinous act? of course it was, but to someone like richard it was that or more war, in which even more of his family and allies would be killed. I doubt it was what he wanted, but clearly declaring heirs illegitimate (or them actually 100% being so) wasn't enough to prevent their succession if they had enough support
The trouble with the remains is no one actually knows which skeletons belong to the two princes or where they ended up, tey literally vanished dead or alive. They had no funeral and were not officially buried. King Charles has allowed the exhumation and DNA testing of several potential child skeletons that could be the princes, but we don't know if they've found any positive matches now and i have to wonder whether ancestors so far removed are even able to be identified by DNA?
I have hoped that King Charles will do just that, especially after King Richard was found in that parking lot, it seems like all treachery though, hiding the insidious in plain sight.. poetic justice in a way then, prove me wrong lol
I am glad someone is standing up for Richard III as I am from Yorkshire and have always been a Yorkist, and after researching my family, it turns out my family were too, going right back to the rebellion of Henry 'Hotspur) Percy. If Richard did kill the Princes, it would be reluctantly and for the good of the country. Margaret Beaufort is not always a sympathetic character, but she had a hard life. I do not think she killed them either, as she adored her only son and I don't think she would have had the heart to deprive another mother, even her enemy, of her children.
A very good account of an extremely complex royal era. There are so many videos and voices (which often grate on the ear). However I loved the way you told it. The pace and tone were perfect!
Hooray! I've been waiting for this for awhile. You've definitely convinced me though it will be hard to get the image of the mad woman from the Gregory universe out of my head. Thank you for resurrecting Margaret for me. I had no idea that Catherine of Valois was the mother of Jasper and Edmund Tudor so thanks for that bit of info. Thank you for another wonderful video on the life of such a pivotal person in English history.
Thanks Bev. Glad you enjoyed it. Yes, best not to pay too much attention to Ms Gregory if in search of real history. She's fun for a bit of light reading though.
@@HistoryCalling Confession: I have never read the books, only watched the White Queen and White Princess.
@@bevinboulder5039 Catherine of Valois & Owen Tudor's relationship is really interesting, & really important! Well worth reading about!
@@beth7935 Can you suggest a book or author?
@@bevinboulder5039 Only really the Owen Tudor bio by Terry Breverton that I'm reading, I'm afraid, & ofc their relationship is only a part of it- I kinda just picked up on stuff from everywhere?
Actually, I heard about the book from a great yt vid about Owen, that you might like to watch- it's on a tiny & massively underrated Welsh history channel called Wynford Emanuel; he's a lovely old Welsh guy, & films at the beautiful locations of the stories- & always provides references, like this book!
I've never found a video on Catherine with more info on her than what's in her wiki page tho, sadly.
Utterly incredible video about an amazing and brave lady
Oh god - even my old brain is a bit addled from this opening 8 minutes. PLEASE would / could you recommend any book where I can follow this Plantagenet / Tudor crossover history? Always seeking knowledge! The subject is, indeed, as you say, 'bonkers'. But as ever, thanks for the Olympian effort on this. Always a pleasure, never a chore. ☺
The book I used the most for this video is a bio of Margaret by Michael Jones and another author whose name escapes me at the moment. It's linked in the description box though.
@@HistoryCalling Bless yer ❤
I just watched this for the second time. WOW, what a thorough and fascinating video. Thank you so much. I learned a lot.
Really well done! That is a lot of complicated material, and you got through it so efficiently, and above all, clearly. Thank you!
Thanks Edith. It was quite a task to put it all together (and the second half too).
Love your narration as always. Man, that was one very convoluted soap opera to keep up with!
I am now listening to this a 2nd time....Man, there are sooooo many details. What an interesting person. And, sorry, she was just a 12 year old girl, when she was given to a 26 year old man. I do not care if it was the custom of the day, she is remarkable for having lived through THAT.
I'm not an expert historian like HC but I believe Margaret was young even by royal standards for this time period. She had nobody in her life who was truly looking out for her best interests, and as an astoundingly wealthy heiress, she was an appealing target. I'm sure there were many contemporary figures who thought her marriage was not appropriate, even though they had different concepts of childhood/adulthood to ours.
The comment above is correct, while 12 year olds of both sexes would frequently be wed, these were almost always proxy weddings, and the couples wouldn’t live together until they were at least 14 or 15. Though still incredibly young, it is close enough to full adulthood as to not be outright disgusting. It was also more common for a young woman to at least be sixteen before her marriage to a much older man was consummated, which though again is considered too young now, it is a common age for young women to reach physical maturation. 12 years old even in that day was very much a child still. Many considered the consummation of such young weddings to be shameful, though political figures through time and place prove very willing to do shameful things for power.
@@DannyDevitoOffical-TrustMeBro Well, yes and no.
12 wasn't considered a "child". Childhood wasn't a recognized condition, really, especially for Royals of breeding age.
@@widowrumstrypze9705 The issue is with people in this comment section is that they use too much of their own feelings and make up stuff to ignore the fact that this was normal during the Middle Ages that boys and girls were considered young adult man and woman at the age of 12 and not that it would be ok today but it’s how it was during that era but many people use their woke 21st century modern mentality to change the facts and history.
Hands down one of the best explanations of how everyone was related & their claim to the throne.
We always get to hear about HIStory, about time we heard HERstory. Thank you for putting this together.
I don’t think any of us ladies would fair well in 15th century. Thank you for bringing history to life entertainingly!
No, I'd be dead as a doornail in a week! :-)
@@HistoryCalling oh me too. We would probably share a grave! Lol!
Thank you so much for laying out so beautifully, just how preposterous the whole “Margaret having the boys killed” plot line is. I really did enjoy the program series based on the Philippa Gregory books, but when I showed the series to my parents, I had to keep pausing it on numerous occasions to correct for its inaccuracies.😁 And the one element which really irked me the most, was just how much of a villain they contort Margaret Beaufort into. These were real people and they deserve better than to have their memories slandered and their names dragged through the mud like that. I think that Gregory must be a Ricardian; for I cannot think of any other valid reason to malign Margaret Beaufort so.
This has been one of my favorite periods of time to study, for years. Your video explanation really clarified things for me.
I REALLY , REALLY enjoy your videos, I love history and you make it so easy to understand and also very interesting. Thankyou.
Thanks Janet. That's very kind of you to say. :-)
Very very fascinating program. Thank you for all your hard work.
Thank you for this lengthy and informative video. So well researched and presented. ❤️
You are so welcome :-)
Absolutely wonderful summary of an extremely difficult and confusing family tree. Well done!!
Love this series!thankyou! It makes far more sense for Richard to be responsible for the boys death. He had already been implicated in the murder of Henry VI and following the Plantagenets pattern of “usurp then kill” (Richard II, Henry VI) this would have seemed almost necessary. Certainly if it wasn’t him he would have investigated their disappearance just to prove it wasn’t him. Sadly the evidence and opportunity all seems to point to Richard, and definitely not Margaret.
Thank you. Yes, I agree. While I realise we're never going to get absolute proof of his involvement, there's a lot more pointing at him than anyone else.
Exactly. With other kings who were usurped then died, we're happy enough to say the guy who usurped them also had them killed- Henry IV killed Richard II, Edward IV killed Henry VI, even though it's at least _technically_ possible they were innocent- but for Richard III killing Edward V & Prince Richard, we need goddamn DNA evidence?!
@@beth7935 don’t forget that any accounts of the boy’s murder are written off as fiction or loving accounts to strengthen the Tudor claim. They seem to forget that one of the men who gathered the information about what happened was executed because he refused to do what the Tudor demanded of him. They way those people paint him and the way his life ended don’t match up
I wish you had these as podcasts so I could listen at work. It's so fascinating
Aww, you can still just listen to the audio at work though can't you? Sadly there's not really any money in podcasts without sponsors and a lot of my videos rely on you being able to see what I'm talking about, particularly the art history ones.
@@HistoryCalling it's just more data than podcasts and I don't have wifi at work
‘I know it’s alot’ 😂 I have looked at this family tree a hundred times and still always need a refresher 🤪
Same here Sara, same here :-)
I appreciate your channel so much! I love how you are so fair and balanced - often exposing the fallacies. Thank you!
I love lady Margaret Beaufort for loyality and her intelligent maneuvering which aided in keeping her son safe and finally making him the king of England. A real epitome of motherhood.
I was lost about 30 seconds into the video, but couldn’t stop watching. What a crazy time in history. Proof that there is likely no time or place in all of human existence that was or will be perfect.
I absolutely love your channel! Thank you so much HC.❤
And thank you so much for watching and commenting :-)
I loooove anything and everything to do with Margaret Beaufort!! Thank you for an amazing episode/upload about her!!😊❤😊
I absolutely agree with you on Rick 3 and the Princes, he really had the biggest motive for their disappearance, and the fact that he became so unpopular in such a short amount of time, proves that people at least believed the rumour that he orchestrated the whole thing.
Just found your channel!! I love it! Thank you so much for your excellent research skills and clear presentation! It's wonderful not to fight through dramatic music to hear the narrative! Have a great day!
I love your war of the roses play list. I could listen to it over and over it’s so complex and compelling! I understand that “might is right”/so who ever could hold the throne wins. What I don’t understand is why a claim going through a female descendent out ranks one going through an unbroken male line? I figured people of the time would think the unbroken male line would be superior.
Yes, might was indeed right in most cases. Regarding descent; boys were indeed preferred, but the daughter of an older son could be preferred to the descendants of a younger son. That's why Anne Mortimer's claim was so good. Her Dad (or was it her grandfather? I'm writing this off the top of my head and haven't double checked) was John of Gaunt's older brother.
It is easier to prove parentage when run through the maternal line, especially when births were attended by many to attest said child was born of said woman. Who could prove they were the only man to have relations to any woman? Always been problematical!
My 16th great grandmother. Really enjoyed this story, thank you!
I think a lot of people commenting that they had never heard of alternative theories regarding the responsible party for the untimely end of the Princes in the Tower are probably American, or at least non-English/UK (as am I). I, however, went on a War of the Roses/Margaret Beaufort binge a few years ago, almost exclusively on TH-cam and heard the theories regarding Margaret possibly (though not probably) being involved. You can find some quality docs on her on YT. A lot of the theories come from King Richard fans (Ricardians? I can't remember their official title). He had what I would consider a bit of a renaissance in terms of reputation. He's still not the favorite king, but I'd say he's not as universally reviled as he once was. The peak may have been around the time, and in the time after his remains were discovered under that car park. Watching a few of those documentaries were incredibly interesting as well. For the record, I don't believe MB arranged the princes' death and was an incredibly interesting figure. She was fierce because she had to be and lesser people would have crumbled or just played it safe, with no political maneuvering under the same circumstances. Advantageous marriages, calculated risks, staying involved in her son's life, even if she was not in his physical presence until he was king...quite the feat.
Richard III
Yes, some of the Ricardians are rather partial to the 'Margaret the murderer' theory. Each to their own of course, but I don't see any real historical evidence for it myself. I'm with you. She was fierce because she needed to be, but I think there were lines she didn't cross and child murder was one of them.
That's a tumultuous life, the poor woman 😢
By the sounds of it she was cautious and savvy, murdering the princes in the tower would have been very reckless for her (it would have turned almost every faction in England against her- Elizabeth woodville is obvious but Richard should have been enraged that someone had murdered his nephews who were supposedly under his protection), I jsut don't see the motive for it (other than retrospect where it became key to Henry gaining the throne, but like you said at the time that would have been a very unlikely outcome to bet on) and I don't think she'd had an oppotunity to, the princes were under the care of king richard, theoretically they should have been some of the safest people in the land.
I wonder whether it's some bizarre form of misogyny that wants the women of history who coped with the world to have been more scheming?
You make an interesting point about misogyny. The 'theory' that Margaret killed/had the boys killed has been popularised by Philippa Gregory's work and Ms Gregory is obviously a woman herself, but perhaps some misogyny amongst others has helped it along?
I doubt it’s misogyny, I believe it’s far more likely that people just love the extra dramatic flair of some secret conspiracy from someone who wouldn’t have been expected to be involved. People love a good dirty scheme, and the way Richard handled things was entirely without good dramatic flair or room for juicy theories to be thrown around by those who love to treat real history as gossipy fun.
Loving it already, can’t wait for next weeks vid! You’ve absolutely convinced me 😁
Thank you. Yes, I just can't see Margaret having any real motive or opportunity, or Richard failing to mention it and essentially take the blame for the boys' disappearance himself. It ruined his reputation at home and abroad.
@@HistoryCalling Couldn’t agree more, if there was even an inkling, Id figure Richard would use it to cover his own tracks! I almost picture a Jacquetta witchcraft trial sort of scenario if it had been an open suspicion from everyone.
I absolutely love your podcast. Thank you 😊
As a side note, I'm a portrait artist and it really does astound me that the art of capturing somebody's likeness in this day and age had not been perfected a little more. I know with Holbein etc a little later, they were supposed to idealise their sitters but the likenesses are still quite rudimentary. I'm now intrigued, as an avid history fan and an artist, to look into this a little more. I'd love to hear your opinion on the matter. With thanks, as always a fabulous video - from Australia 🙂
Strange isn’t it? They made sculpted things so well and human like, yet paintings seem so flat. Even da Vinci, his sketches seem more lifelike than the Mona Lisa is, she looks like a person but also not very specific of a person. It’s interesting how they wanted that style instead of something hyperrealistic for sure!
@@stephsmanicshenanigans8017 I mean yes but If you look at selfies/photos(the modern likeness if you will)of high profile people in society now they are also face tuned in accordance to modern day standards and are not a "likeness" of the person at all but rather a reflection of society today a vague depiction of an person, it should be noted that the face tuned versions are put out by the person themselves. Today however there with social meda and how everyone now has a camera other non edited liknesses can be taken. But when it comes to the person putting out the image the modern likness is not realistic due to filters face tune so on, similarly with historical images elizabeth the I was wellknown for destroying portraits that where unflattering of her. She could do this because no real likeness of her could be taken without her concent.The likenesses of people have always and will always be censored just in different ways to various degrees of success, In my opinion anyhow (pardon my spelling and grammer please im sure it's horrific😂)
Think photoshop today!😂😂
Holbein was magnificent!
I have been watching your videos and very much enjoying your respectful yet very entertaining recitation of history. I have enjoyed them so much i had to subscribe to your channel. Thank you so much and please keep up the great work.😮😊
I've been eagerly anticipating this video and am excited for part 2. Having been to Pembroke castle and having visited edmunds tomb myself I honestly believe she is one of the most remarkable women in history. I hadn't heard that she'd been accused of killing the princes.....she could barely keep her own son alive, what makes people think she'd have the power and position to murder a king in waiting?!
Excellent video as always, you should do a historical women tier list at some point....I jest of course
Fascinating! Great video am anxious to hear the next part!
Thanks Topher. I look forward to seeing you next week as well then :-)
I think you had a very good point. If Richard III was innocent, why didn't he try to blame someone else? He had so much motive to get them out of the way.
I wonder why he didn't do that even if he was guilty. He could easily have framed someone.
Yes, I think that's quite telling and I agree with Edith that it's a little odd too that he didn't place the blame elsewhere. Maybe he didn't want anyone looking at it too hard and asking questions of specific people? Of course he could have blamed it on Buckingham once the latter was deceased, but maybe Richard drew the line (weirdly) at blaming others for his misdeeds?
What an incredibly convoluted story the history of the Throne is. I think I pretty much understand but my head is spinning! Your explanation is the most cohesive I've heard though.
Thanks Karen. Yes, it was quite the mess. I have a hard time with it too, especially putting together those family trees.
Fantastic video. I absolutely love your videos of the ladies of The Wars of the Roses.
I have never subscribed to the view that Margaret had anything to do with the deaths of Edward V and his brother, so you didn't need to convince me, but I did really enjoy (as I always do) your detailed examination and analysis of the evidence. Please keep them coming
Thanks Jayne. More on Margaret next week of course and I still have the Neville women and Elizabeth of York to do, so plenty to come :-)
Very much appreciate, and enjoy, your acknowledgment of the Swynford/Gaunt dynasty. Thanks for excellence.
I’m shocked anyone believes Margaret had them killed.
Excellent video.👍🏻
Thanks once again. An excellent talk
Ughhh thank you! I absolutely despise the fantasy that surrounds Margaret.
I'm right there with you Steph. I wish people wouldn't take historical fiction so literally.
I'm convinced! I was convinced Richard did the dirty by your Princes in the Tower video, but what a tumultuous life this woman had and more to come!
Thanks Philip. Yes, I think R3 killed them too. It always amazes me when people seriously try to argue that it was Margaret.
Woo hoo! Way to slap down the silly theory that Margaret was responsible for the death of the princes in the tower. Love the video!
Thank you so much. It is indeed a silly theory, but I struggle to convince people sometimes. Gregory's fictionalised account of Margaret has done a lot of damage to the real woman's reputation.
This was excellent.
What a story!
Thanks for clearing up these foolish falsehoods about Margaret Beaufort, too!
Thanks for listening and commenting :-)
I was reading this Alternative history wiki about Mary I and you wouldn't believe what name she gave her only son-Henry. You see, in this ATL Henry became king of England and Ireland on October 19,1564 and was formally crowned on February 2,1565 at the age of age. He was the fifth Tudor monarch to be crowned king of England and Ireland, though his Royal house was officially 'Habsburg-Tudor' he dislike his father and so only ever claimed to be Tudor, not A habsburg.
That actually sounds like a fascinating alternate history :-)
@@HistoryCalling He even name his only daughter; Elizabeth. We ended up getting A Elizabeth 1; just not the one we know.
Of course it really should have been Elizabeth of York who was Elizabeth I, but that's another alternative history.
🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩 Wow! I love Margaret, & I've finally bought & started reading a bio of her (Uncrowned Queen by Nicola Tallis), & days later I have a brilliant video on her from my fave history youtuber?!?! And another one to come?! Thankyou!! This was fascinating & I learnt lots, & it'll be really useful to backup & cross-reference with the book so I learn it all better.
I agree with all your points about why the claim that Margaret had the princes killed is utter rubbish. The baseless slander against her makes me want to throw hands, & it's great to have another video on yt presenting the ACTUAL FACTS & EVIDENCE that prove she had nothing to with it.
The statue of Henry VII at Pembroke Castle is beautiful- I've never seen it before, so thanks for including it, plus the Staffords' descent from Thomas of Woodstock. I know the rest, but not their section yet- 2 executed Dukes of Buckingham in a row & 2 Humphrey Staffords in a row do NOT help, lol.
Thanks Beth. Enjoy the book. I've never seen Pembroke Castle in person myself, but I'd love to at some point.
The facts prove she had nothing to do with the deaths of the Princes, and from an emotional standpoint, I just cannot imagine her being willing to spill the blood of children. She was at her core a mother above all, and if anything it seems she'd be more inclined to help keep them safe until the oldest one could claim his crown. Both because her maternal inclinations and her drive to protect her own son (same inclinations really).
Love this era of history..very informative!
Margaret Beaufort! - awesome - fresh cup of tea and lemon tarts to accompany
Yeah, she was great. Definitely one of my favourites, along with Elizabeth I.
@@HistoryCalling - Elizabeth (the Great)
Concise and enjoyable, glad to find this and subscribe.
Thanks William and welcome aboard. I'm just as glad to have you here :-)
I don’t feel Margaret had any part in murdering the young King and his brother the Prince. There was no reason nor no way for her to do so. Fascinating video…thank you.
"Codswallop", I like it. Thanks!!
Looking back 400 years on my own ancestry in the US , I only found one instance in which a woman got married this early . According to records ,my great grandmother's mother was born to a 13 year old .Her father was 26 at the time . I can only surmize that he married her at 12 ,took her from Kentucky to Illinois where my great granny's mother Delilah was born.
Today it sounds disgusting
Brilliantly explained.
I studied history at uni, and one lecturer did make a good point. He said if Richard killed the princes surely he would have said they died of natural causes (obviously more common in that period!) and given them a funeral and made it very public - to further legitimise himself as the only option for the crown, and also prevent pretenders etc. (which cropped up later in HVII reign). I am not sure what I think to be honest, just thought this was an interesting take!
Wouldn’t a funeral at that time involve a public lying in state where the body was visible? Surely that’s not ideal for a murderer
@@emilybarclay8831 I suppose unless you murder them in such a way as to not cause very obvious injuries etc. Just thought it was an interesting point. I’m not sure what to think at this point, though the only real one with motive is Richard III.
@@elizabeths8308 the only way I could think of to do that would be poison which would work but it was usually looked down on as a ‘woman’s weapon’ but then again murdering children tends to be looked down upon so who knows. All I know is that if there’s absolutely any chance Elizabeth Woodville even remotely expected Margaret of killing her sons there’s zero chance she would have married her daughter to Henry VI. Plus, the same act that made the princes in the tower illegitimate made Elizabeth illegitimate and if she was helping Richard why would Margaret marry her son to a woman she helped make illegitimate? Like you said, Richard was the only one with motive and the only one who benefitted from the deaths of the princes. Margaret and Henry for that matter would never tie themselves to the Woodvilles if they were conspiring with Richard. Henry retroactively re-legitimised his predecessor Edward V which would been undoing his own actions if he was on Richard’s side
I think your lecturer had a very good point. If they were poisoned, smothered or even strangled, any marks could have been effectively hidden with clothing and any lying in state could have been very brief - just a day to show a sufficient number of people that they were dead.
the question still remains, if someone else offed the boys, why didn't Richard know? And if he knew why didn't he do anything about it? If he didn't have them killed he at the very least failed to keep them safe. My own suspicion is that he took the "least said soonest mended" approach.
Wonderful presentation! Lately the late Medieval period is my fave!