Princes in the Tower: Historian Reveals 3 Theories
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- In this What the Elle in History video, I'm discussing one of the greatest historical mysteries of all time: what happened to the Princes in the Tower?
I'm also presenting to you three prominent historians who debate that topic and give talks and write books on the topic. Please check them out as they are all fantastic.
Nathen Amin, Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders
www.amazon.co....
Nicola Tallis, Uncrowned Queen
www.amazon.co....
Matthew Lewis, The Survival of the Princes in the Tower
www.amazon.co....
Let me know what you think!
I wonder if they will test the bones they found in the tower of London. So interesting
I think we can at this point, dismiss the theory that the Two Princes survived. My sense is that if the Two Princes survived, the Yorkists would not have waited that long to organize against Henry VII after the Battle of Bosworth, Edward V and Prince Richard had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry VII, I believe because Lambert Simnel and Percy Warbeck came later, they were imposters. I think Margeret Beaufort and Henry Tudor can be eliminated as suspects because they lacked means and opportunity, so the only plausible suspects are Richard III or the Duke of Buckingham. My question about your theory is whether Richard III have known if the Duke killed his two nephews or not. If he did know them, then why wouldn't Richard execute the Duke of Buckingham to prove his innocence?
I agree 👍.
As I mentioned, Buckingham’s rebellion against Richard - for which he was executed - provided the ideal opportunity for Richard to do this. Whoever killed the princes, it’s very odd that he did not, which leads to the conclusion that he thought it important that people thought they were still alive - as perhaps they were, though it seems unlikely - but this raises further questions about how he intended to deal with the inevitable suspicions that he had had them killed. So far I haven’t encountered a theory that doesn’t deepen the mystery.
I kinda don't loose my sleep over the fact that Richard III was vilified for centuries after this event, because even if we prove him completely innocent on that matter, he still did dethrone Edward V, called him and his entire siblings illegitimate and the marriage between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV non-happened and he did all of this in a deceiving way. first making it look like they just have to wait for coronation day, then literally imprisoning them, then the illegitimating part and becoming king himself! and let's not forget the part where he executed their half-brother and maternal uncle for the crime of trying to protect them! so if we believe that Margaret Beaufort had them killed (which I don't believe) or the Duke of Buckingham (which like you I find more compelling and more making sense and in character of all people in the event) and consider Richard as completely innocent, still it's him who opened way for all of this happening. you also made a good point about the two boys escaping to north and south being so ridiculous and the fact that he did try to marry Elizabeth, his god damn niece, proves me that in a way, he was sure that the boys are dead and there's no future for his family unless if he marries and have kids and with a strong line as well.
I completely agree. He hated the Woodvilles *so* much that he did everything you stated above. Looking at this through a 21st century lens is difficult (as are most things from the 15th century), but Richard was FAR too calculating, even for his time!
You also have to take into consideration the influence of the Catholic church and the power of the pope regarding marriages and that signed marriage contracts were effectually legal marriages which was the basis for declaring the children illegitimate. Many royals and nobility used these laws to get out of unwanted marriages, i.e. King John, Henry viii, dukes, etc all over Europe.
I’m late to this video, but so agree. Even if he didn’t order it, he is still responsible. His actions led to it and he was ultimately responsible for their safety and there is no getting around that
I loved hearing your theory Dr. Paranque thanks for sharing. I do believe Richard III killed them as I can't understand how anyone else could've helped them escape or killed them without Richard knowing but Buckingham is an interesting theory. He certainly seemed to be ambitious for the throne as well.
Thank you so much for being here!!! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🥰
I still think Richard III did it, for the simple reason that they disappeared on his watch. And as things stood at the moment, he was the one who gained the most. Henry VII was still in France and let's be honest, his invasion of England was at its core, a pretty desperate attempt... he would have likely lost the Battle of Bosworth and probably would have been killed without Stanley's intervention. Furthermore, let's assume they disappeared without Richard's approval... did he ever order any investigation? If some of your biggest rivals for the throne disappear from custody... wouldn't you be at least a bit curious what happened and how? The only logic I can see is that, he knew exactly what happened to them and they were no longer a threat. So... they were dead. Also, this whole defence of Richard seems odd to me. The man was ruthless. He executed a guy after turning on him without warning, arresting him and killing him without a trial. If that's not evidence of him being ruthless, I don't know what is.
This is an interesting and plausible theory that I had not previously encountered. I assumed the video would address Richard III Uberfan Philippa Langley’s theory that was the subject of a recent documentary, that the two princes indeed survived, but that they did not escape from the Tower as proposed by one or more of the trio whose theories you address, as Richard apparently released them, IIRC. At any rate her conclusions appear to stem primarily from wishful thinking.
Regarding Richard’s character, he certainly displayed some positive characteristics and was at the very least more complex than usually portrayed. However he was certainly capable of great ruthlessness, as in executing Lord Hastings, the Princes’ guardian, without trial or even the opportunity to make a confession (in the religious sense) which would have cost him nothing. He is also considered responsible for the death of his younger brother Clarence in the tower, with far less controversy or objection than is raised against his culpability for the murders of the Princes. It therefore seems a somewhat thin defence that his essential decency would not have permitted him to kill blood relations. Ambition must have played a part in his actions as otherwise he had no reason to declare the Princes - and even, posthumously, Edward IV - illegitimate, thus providing the pretext for his seizure of the throne. (The Princes may have been illegitimate under the laws of the time due to Edward having supposedly married in secret prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville but the claim that Edward himself was illegitimate appears completely unfounded). This is not to suggest that Richard was necessarily more ruthless and ambitious than Henry Tudor or many other monarchs and would-be monarchs throughout history but it seems incontestable that he was no less so).
Incidentally you did not mention that your suspect Buckingham also lost his head, though in his case for a water-tight case of treason. I don’t recall that he was accused of the murder of the Princes which Richard might easily have claimed, thus at least providing a defence against the suspicion that fell on him.
As usual, I think you're right. It seems the Duke of Buckingham was the most threatened by the princes. Richard might have wanted to be king, but would have still ruled as regent for quite some time and then been a very powerful man and 2nd inline for the throne.
yes!
Great summary of each of the historians theories around the Princes! And also in sharing your own viewpoint! I agree that there's definitely support for the Buckingham theory, as he did have royal blood, and felt that he could gather enough courtiers to back him, as opposed to Richard, for the throne.. But as you say, the fun is that we'll never know for sure, so can keep debating!
This is such an interesting and compelling topic isn’t it? 🥰🙏🏻
Those who controlled Lambert Simnel claimed he was Edward ,Earl of Warwick, son of the Duke of Clarence, younger brother of King edward IV and older brother of Richard III, not his cousin King Edward V.
We may never know what happened to the Princes in the Tower, but I think that at the very least we should eliminate the presumption of guilt that Richard III has suffered for the last five centuries. As any defendant in any respectable criminal procedure, until sufficient evidence is made available to reach a judgement, he should only be considered a suspect.
However, the attitude I sense from many in the anti-Richard-III camp is that Richard III is implicitly guilty, and that anyone with a contrary view must not only provide evidence that raises doubt about Richard III's guilt, but also that it meet a higher standard to be compelling enough to overturn this traditional presumption of guilt.
So, unless this higher standard of evidence is presented, the basic argument of the anti-Richard-III camp is that Richard III's prevailing guilt must stand. I have to question where this traditional presumption of guilt would come from if it wasn't for the cultural influence of Shakespeare's play based on this King.
To properly select a jury for any trial of Richard III, they would have to find jury candidates who have never seen or heard about Shakespeare's play. An argument could be made that the case be dismissed because there is almost no chance of a fair trial.
Thank you for this very informative video.
I agree with your cogent argument. The anti-Richard camp asserts that nothing could have happened to the Princes without Richard's knowledge, which is untrue. I highly doubt the individuals involved would announce their plans to Richard in advance. If he isn't informed, how is he supposed to know?
The Princes were his responsibility, true. But if he did not actively participate in the planning and commission of their supposed deaths, then he is not guilty of committing that crime. Responsible for it, yes; guilty of it, no.
Interesting theory. Which seems to rest mainly on the fact that your chosen culprit is someone selected by a foreign source. It is tempting to think that a foreigner would approach the matter with a more neutral outlook. But foreign commentators are actually rarely neutral. People in general are rarely neutral. What makes that source trustworthy? Surely it cannot only be the fact that it's foreign. How close was the source to the facts and people involved? Was the source involved in previous gossip concerning the legitimacy of Richard IV and Elizabeth Woodville's marriage?
We need to know more about that source before we think them trustworthy.
As for the notion of Richard not knowing what was being done to his nephews, it seems very unlikely.
Love your Videos❤
Harry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham was certainly greedy for the throne. He believed his claim to power was equally as strong as Richard's as they were both descendants of sons of Edward III. I've just finished a great book by author JP Reedman in which she writes for Harry in the 1st person, and in which he 'admits' to stealing the Boys from the Tower and imprisoning them in one of his derelict castles and starving them. It's a great read. I am intrigued both by Harry Stafford and his son, Edward, as they were both born in Wales and of course, I'm Welsh. It very well could be true what Harry did to the Boys, as originally he thought he was helping Richard by moving them out of public view. Ali
it's was really interesting video mam I do believe that Richard the 3rd did that and I have also seen the documentry about the new evidences but I am not still convinced that they survived and i won't be until the two skeleton that I have were found are dna tested
Richard would have been stupid to kill them. They were under his protection, so Richard is still at fault for their disappearance.
IF Richard III or Margaret would have been behind the murders, wouldn't they have been in a better position if they could present the dead bodies?