The Mystery Of The Princes In The Tower | The Wars of the Roses | Edward V | Richard of Shrewsbury
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- The most enduring mystery of the medieval period is that of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower - Edward V, and Richard of Shrewsbury. Many theories have come about, as to whether they escaped or were murdered, and if so, who did it? In this video, we take a look at the most popular theories surrounding their disappearance, and try to use a process of elimination to come to the most likely conclusion about their fate...
Related Books:
The Princes in the Tower: Did Richard III Murder His Nephews, Edward V & Richard of York? by Josephine Wilkinson - amzn.to/3rFTGES
Richard III and the Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir - amzn.to/3PMeVNl
The Prince in the Tower: The Short Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Edward V by Michael Hicks - amzn.to/3ZK0hdU
The Mythology of the 'Princes in the Tower' by John Ashdown-Hill - amzn.to/3LQdsV5
The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case by Philippa Langley - amzn.to/3F67dZh
The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses and the Rise of the Tudors by Dan Jones - amzn.to/3RJNqGJ
The above book links are affiliate links, and by clicking and buying a book, you're helping support this channel. Thank you very much! 🙌
For my images and footage, thanks to:
Pexels
Pixabay
Wikimedia Commons, especially:
King of Hearts
Jdforrester
Many of my images in this video were made with Midjourney, see if you can spot which ones!
I strive to always credit everyone whose images I use, and try as much as possible to use images freely in the public domain (purchased where not possible) - please let me know if I have missed you so I can give you due credit.
Folk Round by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Burglar by Kuro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. creativecommon...
Source: / free-medieval-backgrou...
It's always amused me how a King could legitimize, or delegitimize someone's royal standing... and how many times they've done so, always to their advantage. (ie; to keep/seize power)
You have such a great voice for narration. Thanks for the hours of enjoyment!
Thank you so much! That's very kind. 😊 And you're right, it seems to have been such a normal process in the past to decide one royal isn't royal, often taking the crown through dubious means or conquest...while equally hoping their own children would hold onto the throne as well.
Exactly. If you're born of royal blood, you're royal..H8 legitimized his son by a mistress, Henry Fitzroy..if you have any children, the ones born under legitimate marriage should reign first, then the others who are not ; only if there's no one in your family left to rule. I know many would disagree; but it's not the children's fault what their parents did. God adopts all of us through the blood of Jesus. If there's enough children under recognized marriages, then make the others Dukes or Duchess, Earls etc. I see many movies about royalty, that their illegitimates are in court, but called bastards..that's hurtful, and not their fault. All 3 of H8 children who ruled, had 3 different mothers, and his son by a mistress, Henry Fitzroy, almost ruled had he lived. He was made a Duke, and given lands, titles etc.
Richard had nothing to do with illegitimizing Edward IV’s children. That was all Bishop Stillington. Stillington produced evidence of Edward’s plight troth with Eleanor Butler to the June 16, 1483 meeting of the Privy Council. In 1483, a plight troth was as binding as any marriage.
@@cathyd.williamssaltlight5373Richard never attempted to legitimize his illegitimate son, not even after young Edward died.
@@nbenefiel I was referring to Henry the 8th.
I believe that it's highly likely that it was Richard (with or without help) who was ultimately responsible for the death of his nephews.
He had previously displayed his ruthless nature by having many of the Woodville family plus Lord Hastings killed.
He would have believed that he had no other choice in order to keep his crown and also his own life. He would also have convinced himself that his continuing reign would be in the best interests of the nation.
One of the things that always gets me is, the Tower was a royal residence there must have been plenty of people who worked there and would know whether or not there were still meals being sent to the boys, whether anything was delivered for them or sent by them, and so on, and yet there's all this mystery about whether or not they were dead and when. Especially when it's usually not hard to bribe servants for information.
The other thing is that Richard III - of all people! - knows that unless and until a rival claimant is dead (provably dead, as in the body has been shown) you will never, ever be able to shake off people trying to replace you with them. So with that in mind killing the nephews but pretending they were fine is a bit baffling. He can't possibly have thought nobody was ever going to ask to see them ever again, so he has to either kill them in such a way that he can show the bodies and say "They got plague or something. RIP but these things happen, eh?" or blame someone else for it, but the important thing is they need to be definitely for sure 100% dead and everyone needs to know about it (while also not thinking it was his fault). So I think maybe something went wrong and they either died by accident or he killed them but the assassins left the bodies "unfit for public display" and then he was stuck with no princes but also no bodies he could show off and then got stuck in a bizarre spiral of denials.
As you say, this is the bit I always bring up when people say the boys survived for two years until Henry VII came to the throne, apparently without anyone seeing them. As you say, there would have been servants, maids, doctors, grooms of the stool, grooms, tutors...the list goes on. And yet all of them just...stop going to the Tower. People knew they were dead, but they couldn't prove it. And I agree with you that the most likely reason Richard III couldn't prove it either is that either the bodies were unfit for display, or he didn't know where they were.
If Richard had his nephews killed, he would have done what EdwardIV did after killing Henry VI, present the bodies to the public, claim they died of natural causes and buried them with all dignity. Nothing else makes any sense. The secrecy surrounding their disappearance did Richard far more harm than their deaths would have done.
1500 people worked and lived at the Tower of London in the 1480’s. You’d think someone would have noticed a double murder and burial under a rather massive stone stairway. Richard was dead two years later but no one ever came forth telling the tale. It would have been hard to miss.
@@nbenefiel yeah either way there should have been a few people who knew something. maybe they were asked but we just don't have records of it? surely someone asked "when's the last time you took food to the princes?"
@@nbenefielit would be even more difficult for the boys to have been in the tower and no one saw them.
I agree with you. I don’t think Richard was all guiltless. Same for Buckingham. Had Buckingham done it on his own, Richard would probably have said so. The fact that he didn’t implies they were both on it. Equally, when rebelling, Buckingham could have explained his motive for doing so had it been due to his disgust at Richard’s treatment of the children, he would’ve told Margaret or Henry too. Them being both culpable explains the most
They're both just so suspicious! Not to say I trust ANY of the suspects completely, but Richard III and Buckingham definitely come up first for me. The other huge thing that is so odd with no context is their falling-out, and there just has to be something behind that.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople ikr! sure, there may have been accounts which did not survive, but so many did, and n o n e mention it! They kept it quiet…
I must admit, though I’m not a fan of the Tudors *taking* the throne, I have a soft spot for Henry VII😭 Idek why, with things like his infamous miserliness being well known, but I suppose soft spots aren’t supposed to be explained😭
When “Perkin Warbeck” appeared in Europe claiming to be Richard of York, one of his strongest supporters was Margaret of Burgundy. She would have been Richard’s aunt.
Thank you for more great content. I think it is worth mentioning that despite Richard having been made protector, Earl Rivers had been made guardian to the prince by Edward IV. Also, if I’m not mistaken, Elizabeth hadn’t willingly given up Richard to join his brother in the tower but that she did so under duress since Richard’s men had surrounded Westminster and were threatening to break sanctuary. In relation to responsibility for their disappearance, at the very least Richard would be guilty because it happened under his watch and nothing, especially at the tower or any other royal palace would happen without Richard’s knowledge and say-so. Henry Vii was still on the continent when the boys disappeared and there is no evidence of serious contemporary talk about this. Talk about Margaret Beaufort only started much later and holds no water. She was a determined woman but also very pious and it wasn’t until after Richard took the throne that it is said she may have started seeing a possibility of Henry not only being able to come back home, but also to take over kingship. It is after a meeting with Richard who showed no interest in allowing him back with Priveleges that the tide would have started to turn since just before Edward IV had died, Henry was being allowed back and the king had already drafted the relevant document but then died; so until this point there was definitely no need to eliminate the boys and it’s quite a leap to think this up overnight seeing that Henry Tudor had a weak claim anyway so this was not a long thought of ambition. Also, Henry Tudor gathering so much support was in part due to disaffected yorkists who had been loyal to Edward IV. One of the reasons so many people were upset, including the man on the street, is because they blamed Richard for the disappearance of the boys. In general, all of Richard’s actions from when he found out his brother had died clearly point at his guilt, otherwise why would he execute Earl Rivers who had been trusted by Edward? Why were the boys seen less and less and their attendants dismissed, etc etc. no doubt in my mind :). Identifying the bones of the boys won’t prove who killed them
You make a lot of good points, and you're right about Elizabeth Woodville giving Richard of Shrewsbury up, there was a chronicler who stated she did it under duress. And as you say, even if DNA evidence proves the bones are those of the two boys, it still doesn't prove who killed them. And equally, if they are _not_ the bones of the boys, it also doesn't prove they escaped.
Thank you for confirmations. I wish everyone was as balanced. I can’t believe some comments I read and also some biased videos I see so often. We behave like one side or the other is family to us! We can’t make history for our wishes 😊
I 99% think Richard did it (or was otherwise responsible for them not NOT getting killed... if you see what I mean), but I also think that in that 1% universe if Henry VII turned up at the Tower after invading and battling etc only to find the two princes awkwardly alive... well I don't think they'd have *stayed* alive for very long. (But as I said, I doubt that's what actually happened.)
Loved this in-depth analysis on this mysterious case and also seeing your face! You're wonderful and looking fabulous. I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on this topic and hopefully we will get closer to the truth by DNA testing soon. Fantastic work. Thank you so much 🙏🏻
Aww, thank you so much! 😊 I had literally got my hair done when I recorded as well, so at least my hair was alright, haha! It would be fantastic to get some DNA evidence, even if it was 'none of the remains are theirs', although obviously that would open up more questions.
Richard III kidnapped, and held his nephews in the Tower.
After King Edward IV had died, Richard III intercepted Anthony Woodville (brother of Elizabeth Woodville) who was escorting Edward V back to London.
Richard then imprisoned Anthony Woodville, and then two months later, had him executed.
People try to put a spin on events that the princes were kept in another place. I find this strange, since Richard III had gone to lengths of getting himself crowned.
By the time there was an agreement that there would be marriage between Elizabeth of York to Henry VII, there had to have been considerable belief the princes were no longer alive.
I do think the situation devastated the family, and may have affected Henry VIII, as I'm sure he was told about this tragedy.
Maybe that is why he was so determined to have a male heir, and naming him Edward.
I totally agree! Whenever people try to prove the princes were still alive, they never seem to consider the actions of Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, and Elizabeth Woodville, all of whom would not have acted as they did had they thought there was even a chance they might be alive.
When he saw there was no heir, why would he make a competing line with Anne Boleyn? The logical thing would have been to have Mary 1 marry Reginald de la pole.
@@HistorysForgottenPeoplebut who would 'hold" their place until they grew up over seas, if they were alive? What if they were removed to keep them away from the Woodvilles.
It is so hard to comprehend how children could be taken from their parents and nobody fought for visitation. Such different times! Great analysis and thank you !!!
I agree, it is difficult for us to understand now, but I suppose Elizabeth Woodville was probably afraid to make a move because of needing to also protect her daughters. I think also no one would have believed the boys would be harmed or disappear in any way.
Women had very little power in those days
Edward IV died. His son, Edward was taken to the royal apartments in the Tower of London to await his coronation. He was lonely so Richard requested his brother be allowed to stay with him. At no point did Elizabeth Woodville blame Richard for her sons death. Even after Bosworth, with Richard dead, she did not blame him. I think she knew exactly where they were. By Perkin Warbeck’s time, Elizabeth was imprisoned in a priory and Elizabeth of York was never allowed to see him.
@@heatherfeather1293not true. Women had more power than we give them credit for. Wives ran the manors while their husbands were away fighting, often for years at a time. Abbesses of large nunneries were very powerful. Women ran taverns, made ale, owned land
@@nbenefiel And yet nobody bothered to put the princESSES in the tower
I agree, it makes the most sense for Richard and Buckingham to have teamed up to have the princes done away with in order to secure Richard's claim to the throne, but that the assassinations were botched, which sent the plan of displaying the boys' remains and having a public funeral down the drain. Richard was furious, and Buckingham, fearful of his life, switched sides to support Henry. Only that didn't happen, and he lost his head. And even after Buckingham's death, Richard didn't dare blame Buckingham for the princes' death, because it was too well-known how close Richard and Buckingham were before this. Admitting that his BFF completely fooled him into trusting him would make Richard look weak. Yep, the only path forward the moment the boys were killed was for Richard to keep his mouth shut and do away with anyone who could point the finger at him.
(And I will admit, the theory that Margaret and/or Henry were behind the deaths of the princes is a fun one in terms of reading historical fiction about it, but it's not what I think actually happened. That's the beauty of historical fiction.)
This is it, as you say, even after Buckingham's death, too much time had passed and they had been too close. People would have immediately asked why Richard didn't publicly announce Buckingham as the murderer after his return from York and have him executed. The answer, if this is what happened, is that Richard would have known Buckingham would tell all about his part too. Keeping quiet was the best course of action. It does make wonder what his long-term plan was though. Maybe after ten years to produce two boys who looked like the princes, and convince everyone it was them? Who knows.
And you're absolutely right about the Margaret/Henry theory in historical fiction, it's an interesting viewpoint to explore when it's fiction! 😊 The problem comes when I have people arguing with me in the comments section about it based off historical fiction!
@@HistorysForgottenPeople Yeah I always wonder about the long-term. People were going to want to see the princes eventually, he couldn't just say "oh they're in the Tower you can't visit them though" forever. Sooner or later he'd need bodies or imposters or a REALLY good explanation for having neither. That's what makes me think there could have been an element of panic/accident involved, because Richard III doesn't otherwise seem incompetent. (I'm the sort of Richard III Fan who goes "oh but he'd have done BETTER murders than that! he'd have a good lie ready to go!" SORRY EVERYONE! :D )
@@punkykenickie2408 You're of the Richard III was much smarter than that school so there would't have been obviously signs of murder on the bodies, and that some ejjitt botched the job and left bruises. . . my money's on the choke hold. Hard to hide a handprint the size of a man's around a child's neck.
If Richard had, for some bizarre reason, had his nephews killed, he would have done exactly as Edward IV did with Henry VI, presented the bodies to the public, claimed they died of natural causes and buried them with all due pomp and circumstance. The mystery did Richard far more harm than their deaths did.
@@nbenefiel It's like he had no alive princes to show off but also no dead ones either :O
The greatest murder mystery in medieval England... loved this video. Thank you!
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊 Maybe one day it can be solved and those two boys can finally rest in peace.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople As you said, I hope its in our lifetime... I too have always been fascinated abiut the Princes in the Tower...
Actually, I'm not sure it is the "greatest' it's just the most famous. I'd like to nomiate the murder of Prince Arthur, the son of Prince Geoffrey, and the grandson of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. After his attempt to grab for the crown of England after Richard I's death, John took him prisoner. No one saw him again. Question is did John himself do it in a fit of rage? As he was prone to those, or did he have some one do it? DeBroase? Someone else? Just what happened to Prince Arthur?
The problem is, there is no evidence they died.
@@nbenefiel Well, after 700 years, I think it's safe to say that they are dead.
Ive always wondered about the boys' dusappearance in conjunction with the failed rescue attempt. What if something had happened during that rescue? Say they were badly injured, and although attempts were made to save them, they died anyways. Richard might have kept the deaths a secret to avoid getting flack for his inability to take care of his nephews. Thats the only reason, poor tho it is, that I've ever figured that he wouldnt present the bodies. He saw his brother show the bodies of Henry VI and his son Edward, after winning the crown, and while this didn’t stop uprisings, it surely reduced them by a significant margin. Why would Richard not do the same, knowing how effective such a tactic was, unless showing the bodies would have damaged his reputation worse than keeping it a mystery?
You've hit the nail on the head - if they died of natural causes, and didn't resurface on another country, what could be worse than showing the bodies?
Absolutely riveting Miranda. Personally, I think the botched rescue theory seems the most the likely.
Thank you! 😊 I agree that after my favourite theory of Richard + Buckingham, the botched rescue attempt is certainly something I like next. Obviously having no evidence to back it up means it's not something I could wholeheartedly commit to (at least until we find more evidence!), but it does fit the events that happened around it.
I suppose the same idea could even be applied to Elizabeth Woodville, in theory. She could equally have attempted to rescue her sons, and it was botched. It would explain her reaction when she told only of the rumours about their deaths, and the fact she accepted Richard III welcoming her and her daughters back to court, which she may have done only as she knew Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury were dead.
There must be some documents somewhere that detail what people thought at the time. I know it was over 500 hundred years ago, but surely people still speculated about who "disappeared" them
I think there probably were people who knew more than they said, but once Henry VII became king, a lot of nobles got bumped off, and a bunch of others died at Bosworth. Those that were left probably just wanted to keep their head down, especially if they knew something but didn't know the whole story.
We have very little, Mancini and the Croyland chronicle, a few entries in court rolls. Henry destroyed everything he could. The only reason we know about Titulus Regius is that someone bound it into the Croyland chronicles.
Henry Tudor destroyed most of the documents from RichardIII’s reign. We have the Croyland Chronicle. We have a lone copy of Titulus Regius the majority of which Henry destroyed. We have Mancini, but he spoke no English and tended to hang out with Lancastrian supporters. We have Richard III’s account rolls and those of Margaret of Burgundy. We have the records of the Privy Council meeting of June 1483 and those of Richard’s only parliament. That’s about it. Thomas More was 5 when Bosworth happened. He grew up in Bishop Morton’s household. Morton was one of Richard’s worst enemies. More abandoned his biography of Richard, never finished it. It was published, years later, by his son in law. Our sources on RichardIII are pretty slim. Shakespeare had Richard killing just about everyone, which is ridiculous. Richard was Lord of the North for years. He was respected as a benevolent and fair leader. He was head of the military and was one of the wealthiest men in England. He never wanted to be king. Richard was only king for two years. In that time both his only legitimate child and his wife died. He was known to be extremely kind to women and children. I just can’t see him killing two children who were no threat to him.
Hi. Awesome live history video. I enjoyed it. How are you doing? I'm doing well. Just enjoying the autumn 🍂 weather in Ontario, Canada. Your history videos are always enjoyable. Have a great day. See you next video 😊
Thank you, I'm good! I'm glad you're doing well. 😊 We've finally got autumn too, just about - hopefully it doesn't switch to winter too quickly!
The escape attempt theory may be conjecture but it does answer the questions better than others. Even if a killing by Richard was botched he could have blamed Stafford after his execution.
This is it - I can't fully subscribe to the escape attempt theory (my MA tutor would have me strung up for daring to say something about history with no evidence! 😂), I certainly like it for how events around that time fit to it. The biggest problem with Richard blaming Stafford after the execution is that people would question why he hadn't _immediately_ said something - a little bit like it got more awkward to announce it the longer the silence went on, perhaps?
@@HistorysForgottenPeople I have a friend who speculated the kids could have died accidentally (disease maybe) and it looked really suspicious and then Richard III kept putting off telling anyone until he could explain it better but of course the more time passes the more suspiscious it looks so that wouldn't have been a good idea after all.
It's a mystery that's endured for over 500 years, sadly I don't think we will ever truly know the fate of the prince's in the tower, perhaps they were murderd or escaped who can say, as you rightly say not enough evidence has been found, Richard could of had them murderd as could Henry Tudor, thank you HFP as always.
Hi. Pretty new subscriber here. Just to say I absolutely love your videos. Please keep them coming 😊
Thank you so much! It's great to have you here. 😊
Henry 7 destroyed a lot of documents when he took the throne, I think they survived.
It's true that a lot of things were destroyed by Henry VII, plus he bumped off a lot the nobility when he became king, so there were less people who might have known what happened. All theories are definitely still valid, but the issue I have with them surviving is that they never came forward. If pretenders like Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck came forward, why not the real Princes? 🤔
Perkin Warbeck’s resemblance to Edward IV was startling. His education, his musical training and his knowledge of EdwardIV’s court were pretty convincing. The nobility of Europe, Scotland, and Ireland all accepted him as Richard of York. Before forcing him to read that ridiculous confession, Henry had his face bashed in so no one could see his resemblance to Edward. Henry never let Elizabeth of York see Warbeck. He also had him buried in a royal cemetery. I wish Warbeck could be exhumed and his DNA tested. I don’t think this would require royal permission like the bones in Westminster.
31:21 you just discarded the best theory but ok😞😞
p.s- the sound of the Alien appearing is so cute😭😭
To be fair, I often switch between which theory I think is the right one! 😂 I honestly do believe it was probably both of them to some degree, though - at the very least, as I say, Richard III was responsible for them no matter what happened. And I'm glad you like the alien! Didn't know if that might be a bit too much. 🤔😅
@@HistorysForgottenPeople(I was talking about the Aliens theory haha)
Honestly, with as much buzz that happened after the boys disappeared, if they were alive Richard could have easily paraded them around and been like “here they are.” The fact that he didn’t tells me he knew they were dead whether by his hands or others.
Also, does no one suspect Anne Neville of orchestrating it? She had a son at the time and his position was threatened if those boys survived.
This is the thing, as you say - if the boys were alive, in any capacity, Richard definitely would have drawn attention to it. We always think of it in 'those two years of his reign', but of course, Richard would have been planning to be king for the rest of his life. What was his long-term plan?
Yeah, there's a small theory that Anne Neville was involved, but there's no evidence for it whatsoever. She also, as queen, didn't even have control over her own finances or household, so it's highly unlikely she would have been able to orchestrate anything at all. Likely it's the opposite, that Anne had little to no control over any events around her, sadly.
I still believe Richard sent them to Margaret. I do not know who else the Yorkist heirs could have been.
There’s fairly convincing evidence that they were sent to Burgundy.
The most likely suspect IS Richard. Most damming is the fact that he did nothing after their disappearance. No outrage, no vow to find out what happened to them. Henry at that time had no hope of being King, and it was his mother Margaret Beaufort who arranged an alliance with Elizabeth Woodville for Henry to marry Elizabeth of York.
Unless they were no longer in his custody and/or were so far away that it would have taken more time than he had left to bring them to London and parade them around. The very fact that so many pretenders got so far indicates that neither Yorkists nor the Lancasters believed they were dead for a very long time.
I might be wrong but in mysterious cases like this there's always a key question to consider: Who's the one benefitting from it? I've always thought (and I always will) that Richard III did it with or without Buckingham's involvement. He was responsible for the bairns in any possible case scenario even if they died by accident or illness, why the silence? It all goes to point at Richard, sorry for Richard supporters. The ultimate goal was to get rid of them silently, clearing his path to take the crown for himself, in my humble opinion.
You're quite right in asking who would benefit - the main two, of course, are Richard III and Henry VII, but for Henry, only after he decided to become king. Around the time the boys disappeared, it's still mainly Richard.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople Aye! Exactly. Because the young princes were considered 'half-blood' it seems to be the main reason to get rid of them.
Richard had no desire to become king.He was virtual ruler in the North, he was head of both the army and Navy and was one of the richest men in England. After the Woodville theft of EdwardIV’s treasury, Richard was funding Edward’s coronation out of his own pockets.
@@helpinyerdasellavonBishop Stillington revealed at the 16 June 1483 meeting of the Privy Council, that he had plight trothed Edward IV to Lady Eleanor Butler before his secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. According to 15th century canon law. This previous commitment rendered Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth illegal and made all of their children illegitimate. Richard was the only legitimate heir of the house of York.
@@nbenefiel if so he could have been the Regent for young Edward accordingly and the princes wouldn't have been kept as prisoners in The Tower. Richard III might be innocent at the end but such events evolved in a way that made him look as the main suspect in the disappearance of the young princes. The truth is that we still don't know and this is only a theory amongst others on this case until substantial evidence is presented leading to a conclusion by official authorities. Edit: The disappearance of the Princes in the Tower is still an unsolved complex case and because this is history it's facts from reliable unbiased sources that we have to deal with until further investigation by credited historians and official authorities will provide more relevant information.
I personally think Richard III was the culprit and mastermind behind the murders of Edward V and Prince Richard.
That being said, when I think about the Princes in the Tower, I often think about Elizabeth Woodville. Imagine, as a mother, having had your children taken away from you "for their own good," and after a while, never hearing about them no matter how many times you inquire, hearing that people never even see them anymore and then going the rest of your life not even knowing what became of them or where their bodies are if they were really dead. Not to mention, the pretenders who keep popping up, claiming to be one son or the other, giving you false hope and dragging their names through the mud. It sounds totally heartbreaking. Bless their souls, mother and sons.
That's definitely the most popular theory, and Richard certainly had the biggest motive and opportunity!
I do always think it's very complicated with Elizabeth Woodville, especially as she accepted Richard III's offer to come back to court and arrange marriages for her daughters, something which seems unlikely if she believed the boys were still alive AND that she thought Richard was responsible. It could have just been good old denial in order to survive, or possibly she suspected someone else.
@@HistorysForgottenPeoplethere are two entries in Richard’s account rolls well after 1483. The first is money for Edward the son of Edward IV. The other is for “ the Lord Bastard”. Richard’s illegitimate son was never a lord. Edward was. There is also an entry inMargaret of Burgundy’s accounts of money allocated for the raising of Yorkist heirs. Who were these heirs? We know what happened to the Yorkists who survived Bosworth. Henry VII killed most of them. The few who survived him were killed by Henry VIII. There are only two whose fates are unknown.
Why would he have killed them? He was king. No one was rallying around a 12 year old boy dominated by the Woodvilles. If Richard had them killed, he would have presented their bodies, claimed they died of natural causes and buried them with due pomp and circumstance. The mystery did Richard far more harm than their deaths would have.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople Most likely it was good old denial in order to survive and as to coming out of sanctuary and accepting Richard’s rule, I don’t think she felt she had any other choice. It was what it was.
Many witnesses claimed before Richard iii death of not seeing the boys anymore.
There is a lot of information I have read on this subject, making coming to a simple, probable conclusion complicated. Philippa Langley (responsible for mobilizing the archaeological discovery of Richard III's remains), has completed a 7 yr investigation. There is a documentary on BBC4 which has been advertised since June. Apparently, there is a stack of fresh evidence. Langley has a book that is due to be released on November 16th. I will wait until the new evidence is available to come to a more likely conclusion. Until you get your feet and hands into this subject, and read it all from every side do you see that on the face it seems Richard is responsible all or, in part. Until I read all sides did I realize that there is SO much more here. There is no wonder why this mystery has lasted so long.
Um yeah, not complicated at all. Philippa has been discredited by actual academics. Richard is guilty.
The simple conclusion is Richard III did it, all other theories are the 'complicated' ones. Philippa Langley certainly did a great amount of work in finding Richard's body, and she should rightfully be thanked for that. However, she is also a die-hard Ricardian, and like many others in the Richard III society, are too emotionally involved and refuse to see any angle which involves him doing away with the boys. Many things can be true at the same time: he can be a person who was well-liked and respected in the North, he could be a good husband, and he could also have murdered his nephews.
I actually mention some of the research in this video (not sure if you watched it), in the 'Missing Princes Project'. I also point out holes in the research, as have many, many academics. If she had truly found new evidence, then it would be shared with the academic world, not written up into a hyped-up book and TV documentary. In doing it that way, none of her evidence is peer-reviewed, which is a red flag for anything presented as historical evidence.
As you say, I'm happy to see new evidence, and I'm equally happy for the mystery to be solved even if I'm wrong. But if you want a simple, probable conclusion, as the only person with motive, means, and opportunity, Richard III is the likely culprit.
I can’t wait to read Langely’s book. I simply can not see Richard secretly killing his nephews. His only reason for killing them would be to prevent rebellion forming around Edward. The only way to prevent that would be to present their dead bodies. Richard was not a monster. He spent most of his life in the north and they sincerely mourned his death. His sole Parliament was heralded as one of the best in English history.none of this jibes with the monster created by the Tudors and Shakespeare.
You don’t know that. I am tired of people make these “irrefutable “ statements but presenting absolutely no evidence.
In the late 15th century, the Tower of London was mainly a royal residence. Traditionally the king awaited his coronation there. The princes were not imprisoned there. They frequently played outside.
Yes, it was a royal residence as it was used, traditionally, for monarchs awaiting their coronation (specifically in the royal apartments). It was also a prison at the same time, although you have used my use of the word 'imprisoned' to mean it was a prison. If someone is held in a luxurious room and not allowed to leave, are they imprisoned? The princes were not allowed to come and go as they pleased, and Richard III controlled access of who was allowed to come in and out to see them.
The boys did not 'frequently play outside'. There is one recorded account of them having been seen playing outside in the gardens of the Tower, and that was shortly before there were no more sightings of them, around August 1483.
I've no issue with an argument that the boys may have survived, but only if facts remain and are not twisted or changed to fit an agenda.
I have always read that they were frequently seen playing outside and then, suddenly, they weren’t. I believe that was in Mancini but I read that years ago when my Latin was still good. What is your opinion of that story in Audrey Williamson’s book about the boys living, for a time, with their mother at the Tyrell’s manor in Sussex?
I just checked Mancini again. He wrote as 1483 progressed the boys were seen in the gardens less and less. That certainly implies that they were seen more than once.
Have a nice rest of your Sunday (and good week)
Aw, thank you! You have a great week, too. 😊
16:30 "Will no one rid me of these turbulent nephews?!"
That dreaded Plantagenet temper.
@Historysforgottenpeople, I have to say the theory I subscribe to the most is the one with Margaret Beaufort, either by accident or design. I hope that Charles or William do the DNA testing on the bones that were found in either the Tower or buried with Edward IV and Elizabeth. Since Richard III's body has been found and identified we can conclusively identify them as either Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, their younger siblings George and Margaret or plants to make it look like they'd been found.
That's fair enough - as I say at the end, none of us can currently prove anyone else wrong on this one! 😂 While I personally don't think she did it, I will certainly agree that there is still enough suspicion around _everyone_ involved that no one can be fully discounted at all. The DNA testing would be fantastic, whether it proves the remains are those of the boys, or even if they aren't.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople agree. I know that Elizabeth II was one for “letting sleeping dogs lie” in instances like this.
If Margaret Beaufort has blood on her hands richard iii still should carry some blame.
I also have a theory that it was Margaret (although this theory started much later but to me it seems possible cause Tudors had more to gain of it) alongside her husband Stanley and probably duke of Buckingham. Of course, it could be king Richard but when you consider how loyal he was to Edward and how Shakespeare and other writers demonized him, it makes you feel that they lied everything about him and possibly "changed" story about princes in the tower.
Fascinating, thank you. One has to wonder, what might have been?
There's so many questions! What if the boys did survive? What if Richard III hadn't died at Bosworth? Would Elizabeth Woodville have done the same again?
Omg you have a face! That makes me almost as happy as a princes in the tower video!!
people do tend to have those👀 haha jk Ik how good it feels to put a face to a voice or historical person 😌
@@lfgifu296i know right! I also have one, so much in common 😂
@@MissMentats nah having a face that’s crazy :0 (I have one too but don’t tell the secret agents)
LOL I totally have a face! I don't want to brag, but I've got limbs as well. 😂
@@HistorysForgottenPeople LMAO!!! 😂😂
Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, could they been Edward and Richard as a theory?
There is a theory that they could have been, yes. I personally don't agree with it because I think there are too many holes in the arguments for it, but obviously none of us have a definitive answer, so nothing can be truly ruled out. But I do think we should always work from the evidence to a conclusion, rather than finding evidence to fit a conclusion we want to be true, and sadly the theory of Simnel and Warbeck being Edward and Richard do fit more into the second definition.
I think that at least one of the boys may have died of plague and that Margaret and Elizabeth( for their own reasons)teamed up to get the other boy out before he was too. Richard may actually have helped and fained ignorance.
I think Richard sent the boys to his sister Margaret of Burgundy, who had been sheltering Yorkist refugees for decades. I think Edward died of the jaw abscess he had been treated for by Dr. Argentine. I also think young Richard re-emerged as Perkin Warbeck. Most of Europe, Ireland, and Scotland accepted him as young Richard. His resemblance to Edward IV was uncanny. He had solid memories of Edward’s court, was well educated, spoke several languages, had musical training. Henry had him tortured, had his face smashed beyond recognition and threatened his sons life, forcing him to read that ridiculous confession before hanging him. Henry knew exactly with whom he was dealing. He had “Perkin” buried in a cemetery reserved for the higher nobility. That’s the person I would like to exhume and identify by DNA.
Seeing that Edward believed that he wasn’t going to live for much longer it’s possible if he was murdered that he fought whoever had come to kill him and make it look like an accident/illness and he was injured in such a way that accident or illness wouldn’t be believable.
Bruising can show up hours to a day after death so it could have been as simple as someone had to roughly hold Edward or Richard down and there was postmortem bruising that wouldn’t line up with accidental or illness.
Either way Richard III holds a lot of guilt as the boys died or disappeared under his care and he said nothing.
You're right, that's a good theory, as we know Edward was worried about death in some form. And as you point out, even if Richard didn't have a direct hand in their death, he was still responsible for their well-being.
Very smart analysis.
Margaret Beaufort Henry's mother was also in play for wanting and needing the young princes in the tower gone! From a long shot with still having some claim to the throne in the war of the roses! Once King Richard III was crowned only a big battle was in the way of her son becoming king! She had been a HUGE player in all of the war of the roses! So not only was Richard III a threat to the princes in the tower! The Percy have been in and around the crown for 500 years and still are to this day. So all things considered, there's more to the new findings than we take on board! I think that there was still bigger important people in play for the princes to help them without knowledge of other power players who stood loyal to the exiled Queen (the princes mother!) For the fact she had spies, she had ways and means of manipulating situations! The times they lived in the women were the biggest background game changers in this entire historical era! Queen Elizabeth Woodville could have arranged the princes' escape despite what the history narrative says! Margaret Beaufort is not innocent either and Richard III is also a suspect! The royal crown was up for the taking from so many different royalty candidates! And lives at stake so this whole new evidence SHOULD NOT BE DISSMISSED! More history research from all who was, could have been, and possible candidates should be seriously scrutinised and looked into! Documents, Diaries, correspondences dates times places and names as all was conspiracies, wars, battles, spies and so many countries, elite families and one English crown to be under questioning and much scrutiny!!! Nothing In history is as we are led to believe! Nothing is always a straight forward narrative! There was so many involved, so much change, battles, money, power, traiters, countries, decrepit and the British Crown! DNA the bones and put the historical narrative in a place of being g more right on some scientific hard facts! Whoever did kill them if it the princes remains will never be solved but we will know they never got away and that the bones are in the right place 🙏🇬🇧
now for ye question, who is your favourite and least favourite Plantagenet king? (aka Henry II to Richard III himself :)
For me the least favourite is probably John, though Edward II is certainly near the bottom as well, and for favourite, though he probably wasn’t the best personality wise (though I do feel sorry for his later years, having everyone betraying him), Henry II. Despite his personal problems, he had control over half of France and all of England, and kept those domains stable too (Thomas Beckett and his son’s rebellions apart, as the former didn’t rly affect the people’s lives and the latter amassed next to no support, it was quite embarrassing of the sons tbh😭)
Oooh, it's like choosing the worst vegetable and the best fruit! 🤔😂
My least favourite has to be Edward II. He was a weak king, a terrible husband, he was responsible for the financial and defensive security of England breaking down, and for the trauma that his children no doubt lived with. The way he treated Isabella was horrendous, and he did this not once, but twice! Definitely the worst, for me. I do have some sympathy for him, if he really was romantically involved with his favourites, in having to hide who he really was.
My favourite is probably his son, Edward III. I think he was a strong king, a capable administrator, and he certainly cared for Philippa in a way his father never had with his mother. He was also, apparently, a very caring father. He (along with Philippa) repaired the country and restored its finances, and shored up its defences. He doesn't seem to have massively stepped out of line, at least as much as monarchs ever did, and so he's probably my favourite. 😊
@@HistorysForgottenPeople Yea, Edward II really was pure rubbish😭 Edward III was, indeed, quite a King! (especially coming after that failure of a monarch) The reason I didn’t put him in the first place is the 100 Years War- I generally prefer monarchs who keep the peace and content themselves with protecting what they have. Towards the end of his reign, finances weren’t very good anymore (probably due, at least partly, to Phillipa’s death), and the glory days of the War were over. Plus, the idea of attacking peasants while marching through a country doesn’t appeal to me much (yes, Henry V, I’m looking at you too).
Nevertheless, he was, no doubt, a strong King who, through the vast majority of his long reign, administered it well, and him caring for Phillipa (and their kids) certainly speaks in his favour. Sure, he had mistresses, but let’s be honest we can’t expect much more, and, much like George II, he loved his wife despite his sexual escapades (although I must say George and Caroline’s love seems a bit stronger to me, but that might be because of the many accounts of his long lasting and intense grief :’)
@@lfgifu296 Hello. Henry V is my favorite king; he is what I think of an king and had he live, England and France would be united.
Probably Henry II was the best. The worst is harder. Richard Couer de Lion was never in England and bankrupted England to pay his ransom. John was a terrible king but without him Magna Charter would not have been created. RichardII was a child when he took the throne and was pretty useless. HoweverI think HenryVI was about as bad as it could get.
I don’t think Richard harmed them in any way. Rather that he protected them.
That's fair enough, even if I have a different view point! I'm always surprised how people argue so much about this event, as we'll never really know the truth, we can only draw our own conclusions. 😊
I wonder why they are called princes in the tower and not a prince and a king in the tower considering one of them was a king.
Probably because 'The King and The Prince in the Tower' is a bit more of a mouthful. 😊
That sounds like a fairy tale. xD@@HistorysForgottenPeople
Because it sounds more like the title of a gay romance novel.
Because in those days the term “prince” being gender neutral was applied to queens, kings, princesses and princes.
Edward Vth was never anointed and crowned king. Therefore be is always referred to as a Prince.
The Tower was not used as a prison back then (when the princes were there) it was used as the kings residence....after elizabeth of york fave birth to her 7th child and also the time she died, Henry VII moved away and then only was it used as a prison...ELizabeth of York gave birth in the Tower....so If the Princes were in The Tower it wasnt to imprison them, but to keep them there until they can be moved or situated elsewhere...The Tower were build as a Kings Residence not a prison that only came later...in my search about the love story between Elizabeth imof York and Hendry VII it stated that she were in the Tower giving birth to her 7th Child in which she died..Henry VII were hsartbroken and Shattered then after that the Tower were used as a Prison...
You're right, it wasn't yet used as a prison, but I haven't said that it was. The boys were placed in the royal apartments, but were not permitted to leave, hence they were imprisoned. (If I'm in a comfortable mansion, but cannot open the door and leave, I'm imprisoned no matter how nice it is). The two boys were seen by hardly anyone, and you have to remember that the Tower was a hive of activity, so at the time it was noted as unusual that they were never seen. Then after the summer, they were not seen at all, which means they were not there.
What about the young Earl of Warwick, imprisoned after the battle of Bosworth by Henry V11th aged only 10? He was the son of the Duke of Clarence who was executed by Edward1Vth by drowning, in a butt of wine. Warwick was executed by Henry , along with Perkin Warbeck, on trumped up charges when he was only 24 , having spent 14 years as a prisoner in the Tower.
I really don’t have a “top pick” who the murderer could have been, BUT I always thought that the argument that it couldn’t have been Margaret Beaufort because “she was a very religious person”, isn’t a very good one. I mean the crusades in the holy land or later the Spanish Inquisition are great examples of very religious people doing terrible things. But that’s just my opinion 🙈
You are right, but that is why it isn't my only argument for her. A much stronger argument, in my humble opinion is a combination of the fact she had a strong relationship with both Elizabeth Woodville and the royal children, and also the chance of her being able to get at the boys in the Tower is very slim indeed. Nevertheless, even in the medieval period some people took being religious and not cruel very seriously, so it's still worth a mention. You're absolutely right in that is can't be the _only_ reason though. 😊
@@HistorysForgottenPeople I absolutely agree 😊👍
1. Edward IV and Elizabeth his wife do not seem to have been concerned for the young Edward V's safety with his uncle Richard III, only for the position of the Wydville family. Richard himself doesn't seem to have had a motive against his nephews as he had the power and sound reason to delegitimize them and enough popularity to carry it off, and the fact that they could potentially grow up to publicly support his reign would have solidified that; the murder of his minor nephews would have undermined both his power and his popularity and given his rivals political ammunition against him (as their disappearance did and as he would have known given Richard II's unjust treatment of his cousin was the basis for the claim of tyranny against him that put the Lancastrian Henry IV in the throne).
2. One or both of the boys was sickly, and may have been moved for their health and in poor enough condition to not be able to come back to prove they were alive.
3. Over the next several decades, people pretending to be the lost princes were believed EVEN BY THE YORKS, including their own sister.
Well, for the first point, Edward IV was dead, so he couldn't really have a say in Richard looking after his sons. Certainly when he was alive he believed his brother would look after them, but people often overlook the fact that Richard was a very distant uncle at that point - he had spent most their lives in the North and was not close to his nephews. Same goes, of course, for Margaret of York, their aunt in Burgundy. And as for Elizabeth Woodville, while she was undoubtedly worried for the position of her family, there's no reason to think she wouldn't care about the safety of her son. It's really weird when people say things like this in relation to the boys' disappearance - it's not as if Elizabeth (or anyone) had any signal that ANYONE would try to bump off the legitimate king and his brother, and we know even in modern times the most likely suspect for crimes against children is often someone they know well.
He definitely had a motive against them - Titulus Regius was not a watertight document in any way. It could easily have been revoked, and considering the next king after Richard III used 'crown by conquest' to take the throne, being illegitimate was not the barrier it seemed. Had the boys grown up and allied with people who wanted rid of Richard, they would easily have been back on England's throne one day. They would never have grown up to support his reign, I'm not sure why two boys made illegitimate (one of them knowing he is king) would want to promote the guy who usurped the throne from them. Pretending Richard didn't have a motive is ignoring historical fact.
The murder of his nephews absolutely would have been detrimental for him - the rumours he had murdered them was bad enough. Hence the suggestion he planned to make it look like natural deaths from illness, rather than murder. If it looked like murder, the bodies couldn't be shown...
For your second point, if Edward V was ill and couldn't prove he was alive, one of two things would have happened; he would have later come out publicly and declared himself fine, or he would have died from illness and had his body publicly displayed. And what about his brother in this scenario? Is he ill as well? If not, why didn't he come forward?
For point number 3, that's taking a huge leap, and some incorrect information. No, the sister (I assume you mean Elizabeth of York, they had several sisters) did not believe either Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck to be her brother, otherwise we would have sources somewhere saying so. We don't. Often there's a story that Henry VII prevented her from seeing Perkin, which is also nonsense, as his wife was Elizabeth's lady-in-waiting, and so at the very least Elizabeth would have seen him around court. Their mother also never said either impostor was either of her sons, and she didn't have anything to lose by speaking out about it, even after she retired to Bermondsey. We then had several people who publicly said they supported the claim of Lambert, Perkin, or both. Some of these people wanted power for themselves and could do that by taking Henry VII off the throne, and some of them may have believed one of them was one of the princes. Whether that was because they wanted to believe it or really did, we'll never know.
Poirot mode is on👀
**twirls moustache thoughtfully**
@@HistorysForgottenPeople*uses the little grey cells*
Agatha Christie should have had Poirot investigate the murder/disappearance of the princes. I'm sure it would have been a best seller.
@@matthewturner2803 and it would finally have been solved!!
@@lfgifu296 The little grey cells would have cracked the case.
Another theory..someone couldve just taken them out of the Tower and taken somewhere where they lived out their lives as a normal citizen not knowing anything, maybe someone felt that there might be a murder plot for the boys and that person took initiative and grabbed them out to safety...remeber they were still very young and it wojld be easy for them to forget who they were if they were taken to a place where nobody knows who they actually were.
There is a theory that is something that could have happened, but the biggest problem with that is that the boys would probably not have been content to live as normal people for the rest of their lived- especially once Elizabeth of York was queen. They weren't really that young, by medieval terms. Edward V was 12, just two years off the age considered canonical for boys to marry, and that they were therefore men. He had grown up as the heir apparent, as a Prince, now knowing he was the rightful king. There's no way he would have been happy to live out the rest of his life as a commoner (as Philippa Langley's latest book suggests). Even if we pretend he might have done that for a while, once Titulus Regius was revoked, he would have come forward.
I think.at just shy of 13 years old Edward Vth.would both know and remember who he was!!!
It was a few years ago, but I saw a documentary on Richard III. I’m sure they found evidence that Edward IV had been married before? I think it might have been abroad. But I might have dreamt it! 😂🤣😂
I’m surprised you don’t consider Perkin Warbeck. I think the Duke of Buckingham had the motive and capability to do it.
I'm doing a separate video on Perkin Warbeck in a few weeks, but no, I don't consider him to be involved with the princes' disappearance. You right in that Buckingham definitely had the means, motive and the opportunity to do it too.
So did Stanley and Margaret Beaufort. The boys were a far greater threat to Henry than they ever were to Richard.
Those poor boys. They did nothing to deserve what happened to them.
They really didn't, whatever happened to them. They were used as pawns by adults in power, and it's sad to think they had no opportunity to fight for themselves.
How about Margaret Beaufort, she would do anything for her son. Henry 7. She plotted many things.
I'm not sure if you watched the video, I do deal with the Margaret Beaufort theory in it. 😊
Interesting how so many people believe the Tudors, (Henry) who were so far removed from becoming heir to the throne. He did have near enough royal blood connection. 🙄
* He did NOT...
Correct. Which is why his main claim was through conquest.
4:16 these are merch material, lemme tell you😭
Oh, believe me, it's under way as we speak! 😂 I look for opportunities to use these now. "Wait, can I do a Richard Shocked Face?"
@@HistorysForgottenPeopleyes please😭😭
“Wait, I’m the “legitimate” heir after all?”
@@HistorysForgottenPeople I love the Richard Shocked Face! 😂 Please take every opportunity to use it, & please make merch- I'm pretty sure I need a fridge magnet with Richard being absolutely _astonished_ to hear he's the rightful king 😱🤣
My personal theory? Kids died a lot back then. Imagine kids living in The Tower, with cold and damp. Illness could easily have claimed them.
I do agree that's the simplest theory, and it's certainly a valid one. But the only issue with it is that Richard III would certainly have displayed their bodies had that happened, to quash the rumours of murdering them.
That is true. But why wouldn't Richard own up to this? Why not prove that they had died? When Richard ? murdered Henry V1th in the Tower, it was announced to the wider world that he had died. (of melancholy.) The same when Henry's son Edward of Westminster was killed at the battle of Tewkesbury.. So why not do the same for the Princes, if it were true?
What i want to know is why Henry vii didnt produce any bodies?
I myself would truly like to know what had really happened to the young boys. I would have loved to have been a mouse in the corner back then. 🐭🐭🐭
Richard's own child had died. The king had died. With the very high mortality rate, everyone loves to jump to "Murder!!"
Given the age of the castle, and the different uses it was put to, bones will be found.
I'd love to think Lizzie asked her new fiance to let them disappear quietly, instead of killing them. As Henry and his mother were determined to take the crown, they might have preferred a quiet life.
But why would a teenage boy who knows he is king stay quiet?
@@HistorysForgottenPeople it might be more fun than being killed. They grew up to death announcements and executions. I'm assuming one or both, if alive in hiding, would NOT come out to be certainly killed by the man who slaughtered their uncle. The Woodvilles were losing bodies, the Woodville daughter, their sister, was to be queen - or more war. Maybe a couple of kids who'd been hostages preferred a farm life to life in battle or locked in towers.
Henry did want to execute Warbeck, he also (surprisingly) seemed to love Elizabeth. He could give mercy, but didn't want competition. If the scheming grannies agreed to secrecy, so no one would support an uprising in support of them, it would have spared Henry more to feel guilty about. He was already pretty haunted at how easily a king could be killed, stripped and desecrated.
If you mean Elizabeth of York, then say so. The boys disappeared/died long before she
and Henry V11th were betrothed as she had to be relegitimised. Had they still been alive their claim would have overridden Henrys. This fact makes your comment ridiculous.
@@lizlyon2902 gosh, you are right, unexplained death ended long before the Princes in the Tower. Thanks for taking the time to offer an uplifting, necessary response to something so obviously ridiculous! I feel better educated already!!
@@lizlyon2902 had they still been alive perhaps they were hiding? You make it clear they were marked for murder! Not simply disinherited. Impossible to hide... unless dead?
Just discovered that my 16th GGF was Sir James Tyrrell, did he really do it?
Some people think there's new evidence, some just wishful thinking.
I think the problem is (about Langley's new book) that none of her research was peer-reviewed as I understand it, which is an important part of the process, as anonymous academics who don't know the author can then critique it and find problems. It's not to pick someone apart over it, but to ensure it's done properly, and no gaps have been missed. As Langley hasn't done this, and is now presenting it not as a theory (which is what it is), but as fact, it's a big problem as there's already people who now think it's the answer. Her main theory lies on the idea that Edward and Richard would both disappear quietly, and not tell anyone they were royalty, until many years later, which is highly unlikely! It's an interesting theory, but one that has the least legs - not to mention Langley really isn't impartial, as she's a Ricardian.
❤
What about Ann Neville Richard's wife? Did she order it?
I've seen a few people mention this theory, but there is literally no evidence whatsoever for it - in fact, there is very little evidence for most of Anne's life in general. She didn't even have control of her own finances or household while queen, so I don't think there's any reason to believe she could have orchestrated the princes' disappearance, in my humble opinion.
Anne was rarely even in London.
Anne Neville was not even in London at the time of the boys being declared illegitimate and Richard was declared king. Richard sent for her to come to Londond and lived with his mother at Crosby Place until she arrived. Anne and Richard’s only child, Edward, died, probably of appendicitis, in 1484. He was between 7 and 10. We don’t know for sure. Anne died later that year of the consumption that killed her sister Isabel. Richard was devastated. I think part of the reason he died at Bosworth was because he just didn’t care any more. That’s just my opinion. Richard and Anne had known each other from childhood. He went to great lengths to marry her.
@nbenefiel I always thought that too about Richard in Bosworth. He lost his heir and only child by his wife, whom he loved since he was a boy. They did have quite a long, romantic courtship, and it was said that they laid together before marriage (a big no no back then, but he still pressed on to marry her). He was faithful to Anne, being one of the few kings to be so. That's an admirable attribute of his that I don't think I've heard being mentioned enough if at all. He openly wept at her funeral. By the time of Bosworth, he was a broken man.
No, Anne would never have gone against her husbands wishes in a man's world. What if, one day, he found out?
Every possible answer has flaws. By probably not knowing what happened to the boys, Henry VII dithered with impostors. Had he known the boys were dead, it seems the impostors would have been dealt with quickly and simply. Or after the first attempt of an impostor, Henry would have made a public proclamation declaring the princes dead and gone while blaming the dastardly King Richard.
If the princes were murdered during Richard's reign, it seems odd that Elizabeth Woodville and her children left sanctuary and resumed a relationship with Richard. Elizabeth must have been told something about her missing sons. Maybe she was told the boys had been sent to the Continent, etc. While she may have suspected the worst, she remained unclear. Or maybe she left sanctuary and acted normal because it was part of the plan with Margaret Beaufort to depose Richard.
What makes sense to me is that Edward V was ill and he died. Maybe Richard subsequently died of a terrible disease. Someone who knows the history better than I made a reply to one of my comments that, once Richard declared the princes illegitimate, they no longer mattered. There was no reason to explain what happened to them or stir up public feeling with a public funeral. That makes a lot of sense but subsequent events into the reign of Henry VII show that illegitimate or not, the boys could be rallying points for insurrections.
(Concerning illegitimacy, there is the new research from France suggesting Edward IV was altogether illegitimate. I think this is unlikely, but it is a weak argument to use pre-contract with Eleanor Butler to make illegitimate a whole family, after a successful reign of many years. It has crossed my mind, I wonder if Edward IV secretly married non-royal Elizabeth Woodville in order to avoid serious embarrassment if he had married a foreign princess and more serious illegitimacy was found or accused. Despite the French records, I doubt Edward IV was illegitimate in the way suggested. France is a big country but it's not like Edward's father was far away, like in the as yet undiscovered New World. And pregnancies take varying amounts of time.)
It just seems that Henry VII, Elizabeth Woodville and her children, Richard III and Margaret Beaufort more or less had answers. Good mind games are wondering how things would have been different if these people had different answers. If they knew the boys were dead? If they believed one or both had survived and escaped? Etc.
Great video & in depth analysis. I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. May they R I P.
You should see what actual researchers have found by real evidence. IE letters etc.. Richard killed them or had them killed.
According to a letter sent to thomas more by the son of one of richard iii henchmen the boys were murdered by order of richard iii.
That's right - that's part of the confession obtained under torture, of course, so although I do believe the boys were murdered, it's still always a dodgy piece of evidence because of how it was taken. Having said that, it also doesn't invalidate it, and to my mind, it still fits with Richard III ordering Buckingham to do away with the boys, then Buckingham ordering his henchmen to do it (which is essentially what the confession said).
@@HistorysForgottenPeoplethe letter came from overseas so a tortured confession is false.
I think Richard III did it.
He is certainly the most likely suspect! I always think any theory that discounts him completely is suspect, as he had total control over who went in and out of the Tower, except for the brief period where Buckingham was in control.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople And he saw the consequences of keeping A previous depose King alive.
I think the moon is made of green cheese, but it isn’t. We simply do not know what happened to the boys. There’s those pesky entries in the court rolls of RichardIII and Margaret of Burgundy that everyone chooses to ignore. There is the mystery of Perkin Warbeck, and there is Henry’s bizzare imprisonment of Elizabeth Woodville for associating with Richard. Unless the bodies were presented to the public, the deaths of young Edward and Richard did Richard III no good at all.
As a former/still slightly lingering Ricardian, I believe that he did it too. Regardless of how involved he was in the outcome, he at the very least was 100% responsible.
So do I, Richard murdered anyone and everyone who would query his right to the throne, so why would he leave two nephews to grown-up and later challenge him? However, killing children was not well thought of even in medieval times, so I think he climbed with Buckingham to have then murdered while he, Richard, was away in the North, so as to feign ignorance about their fate. Odd that Buckingham was soon out of favour and executed!! To prevent the truth coming out??!!
it's obvious to me...the butler did it...thank you ron
Imo I believe Richard ordered the death but not directly involved. And they were killed violently so they couldn't say they died of being sick.
Well... Maybe richard ordered to kill his nephew and maybe he did not... ma
How would showing the bodies of 2 dead kids that Richard had been holding hostage make things easier??? You can't be that dense or crooked.
Because as I explained, he could easily have said they died from an illness.
If Richard had displayed the bodies the entire issue would have been ended
It would have had the same effect that showing Henry VI's body did. It confirmed an outcome and cleared the path to the throne. The less confirmation we have, the more conjecture and heresay is allowed to prevail. Royal people almost always were examined and put through an embalming process so "showing their bodies" isn't as macabre as it sounds. It would have given Richard the perfect opportunity to "grieve," pay "repsects," and disallow for any potential pretenders or rescue attempts in the future. "The King is dead, long live the King" is an expression that comes from one having confirmation that the predecessor is no more. The only way to prove that is for many to see and confirm them dead.
They were give to servant familys to raise them as their own children. Eith dna yesting their bloodlines might still be found.
The problem with the idea they were given to other families (or went abroad, or went to Devon, like Philippa Langley's latest theory) is that they were not babies. They were aware of who they were and their place in the social order of the country. There's no way a 12 year old boy, raised as a prince and heir, who knows he is the rightful king of England, quietly goes to live somewhere else, and as a person of a lower social status.
No, absolutely not. Richard could never have been sure that this wouldn't come to light 20 years down the line!
I have heard with King Charles III love of history and archeology, there is a chance that he may consider doing DNA analysis on the remains that was found and that of the remains with Queen Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward IV.
I know this might be wishful thinking for many of us but we may finally put this very old mystery to bed. Even if to know where they now rest. We may never know what really happened to these two royal children.
Great video!! Always so thought provoking and fascinating. There's so many suspects. I am really unsure of what really happened.
🕯📖📚💀🥀⚔️🤍👑❤️⚔️🥀💀📚📖🕯
It would be a huge historical step if DNA testing was allowed on the two sets of remains, and even if neither turn out to be the princes, then hopefully there can still be some sort of closure. As you say, there are so many suspects, and so many possibilities with each of the suspects!