Did King Richard III Kill His Nephews In Their Sleep? | Britain's Bloody Crown | Timeline
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- Historian Dan Jones examines one of the most infamous chapters of the Wars of the Roses, asking whether Richard III really did kill the Princes in the Tower in 1483. At the time of Edward IV's death, his younger brother Richard was an English hero, a great military leader who had shown unswerving loyalty to the crown. So what could have happened to change him into a child-murdering tyrant in just three months?
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service, at a huge discount using the code 'TIMELINE' ---ᐳ bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
The Netflix of History. Use code 'timeline' for 80% off bit.ly/TimelineHistory
???
Incredible channel! Thankyou!
@@GrayFox790 ssdda
Thats amazing information about Richard III of England: th-cam.com/video/pO_jwEDvlBQ/w-d-xo.html
I'm too poor
The casting director has clearly never seen a 12-year-old in their life lol
Neither a portrait of Richard lll. He was a clean shaven man with long hair.
Nope😂
@@idontgiveafaboutyou There are a few portraits of Richard III with a goatee beard, but the most famous painting has him clean-shaven.
@Rae Groce if he would have been 16, the question of lord protector would have never been raised.
You wouldn't want to suggest Richard III had a child killed, would you? That would be so mean.
Dan Jones finally puts on protective gloves when handling ancient manuscripts.
Larry Gassan Protective gloves are now a no no Only the sensitive hands are the way forward It’s all down to feel
I disremember him ever touching one with his hands.
I noticed it too.
Well, they must be copies, I suppose, as one has already said. Otherwise... he is touching them, breathing over them, tapping with his finger and... his nail?!!!
Even filming them will have required a strong light on the manuscripts.
He is using a kind of cordon to keep them stretched open on the table, apparantly supplied by the library. But this cordon is made from beads with pointy, sharp edges. I cant understand that.
He's in France here, different rules I guess. He was in the british national archives before. Their rules are washed hands, with no hand creams or lotions used. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/researching-here/handling-documents/
One of the things I admire about the Brits is their dedication to their history.....the good, bad, AND the ugly (as with any country's history). There are so many good documentaries providing in-depth British historical info. This series gets an A+ (even if, the 12-year old prince was portrayed by a 21-year old actor). 😊 Dan Jones is one my most favorite British historians.
Same here!
I agree and the looks go with it....it sure makes it more interesting...
His books are great.
I agree! I'm from Britan, it's really interesting to find out about our history =-O
Wholly agree. The reason why I became so passionate about Ancient Egyptian and English History is because they have invested in so many excellent productions and engaging documentaries.
This must have been filmed before Richard’s body was found under the parking lot. An orthopedic surgeon who specializes on scoliosis and spinal deformities examined his bones. Richard had an extreme curvature of the spine that did result in hunched posture and atleast a 4 in drop in the symmetry of the shoulders. They were able to locate a scoliosis patient with the exact same degree of curvature at the same vertebral and thoracic vertebrae. The man was then trained by a medieval fighting historian in the techniques of the age. It turned out that his spinal issues and the custom made saddle for him actually gave him far more stability welding a sword in the saddle. So yes, Richard had a significant physical deformity but he was able to overcome it and capitalize on his unique physique. He was raised in a pit of vipers on all sides and was a formidable foe.
😂😂😂
That same Italian’s book mentions that Richard was a graceful and elegant dancer.
He didnt last long anyway
Dominic Smee is the guy. Richard had a scoliosis which doesn´t result in hunched posture, it result in a slight asymmetry. The skeleton found in Leicester was squeezed because the grave was too small. So it looks worse than it actually was. The shoulder asymmetry was emphasised on Richard´s officials paintings later by the Tudors (it´s well visible). On the contrary scoliosis is not visible if wearing tailor made or other well fitting clothes and of course definitely not visible wearing the armour. Having scoliosis myself I know how Richard´s posture would be :-).
Wow, interesting info. Thank you Alicia!
I love Dan Jones's facial expressions as he's telling us the story.
It helps that he is Bloody FIT (HOT!)
Excellent presenter/narrator.
@@kaisanderson9616 I agree on both. He is also extremely passionate about the History.
@@carolmorris404 yeah
@@carolmorris404 passionate about history , yes. But i might respectfully disagree with him that Richard killed his own nephews. I would argue that heinous act is more likely to have been committed at the insigation of Henry VII .
Richard: I'm just following my brother's wishes
His brother's wishes: take care of my kids and guide oldest son.
Richard: takes care of their deaths and guides them to the afterlife...
Yep just following my brother's wishes is all ...
Personally hope the first person Richard saw after he died was Edward IV
Very soon happily reunited with Daddy
@@TheSeptemberSapphirebrilliant!! Edward & his 2 sons! I know, these ppl are mental! If I’m ever on trial for double murder I hope the jury is full of ppl who believe Richard was innocent
I've always felt horrible for the Princes. I mean, they were just kids, and thrown into a terrible situation they couldn't get out of even if they tried. No kid should ever have to go through something that horrific.
@Gary Allen Yeah, 'no evidence they were murdered' except that they were never seen alive again after being imprisoned. I mean good lord, do you hear yourself?
@@andrewroby6113 Never seen again? Are you mad? They were seen playing and doing archery many times in the garden, and then once in August if I'm not mistaken, and we don't even know when they stopped publicly appearing. The the sightings of them stopped randomly. There is no evidence on what exactly happened to them, the princes just disappeared for all we know
@@nix.i "Stopped randomly" hmmm... Almost like they were suddenly murdered
@@mae8646 It is plausible, but I can't decide which side I'm on. Their last public appearance is commonly attributed to late August to early September, a month or two after Richard's coronation. It makes sense for him to have killed them, but it also makes no sense for him to have killed them. I suppose it's just another of those things we'll never know the answer to
@@mae8646 lol... but what evidence is there? You can't just say its almost like they were suddenly murdered but then accept it as definite. They might have become full blown recluses for all we know. Stranger things have happened.
No mention of his wife Anne Neville, the daughter of Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker…..
And also widow of Edward of Westminster, son and heir of Henry VI.
Earl of Warwick died last episode
That went full circle...
Why would that make a difference who his wife is? Do you mean to say that he was untrustworthy from the start? If so, that’s a good point
@@celia3601 because she was a big part of the story
37:02 *"Richard hesitates theatrically. Should he accept? Is he the right man? Seriously !?!"* LOL. That's never gonna get old. Way to go Dan.
I also had a lauch at that line, even if the remainder of the documantary is rather dark
Exactly!!! Good bit of politicking. Probably written by a good spin doctor.
that is the tallest 12 year old ive ever seen
Marteen Luther Kangs LOL right.
Marteen Luther Kangs ...yup, and other documentaries show them as (what looks like) a 7 yr old and a 5 yr old. Lol
He’s about 17 there
Marteen Luther Kangs and he can’t act.
sheeeit
If the team of the Timeline channel should ever read this comment, just wanted to say thank you for sharing those interesting documentaries about the history of Great Britain/England. I love watching them and Dan Jones makes this even more interesting. Plus, I've seen you do not only read some comments, you even listen or answer to them. Thumbs up for the whole team. 👍
Greetings from Germany. 😊
Greetings from the USA.
Greetings from Newfoundland
I agree 100%. Excellent!
Greetings to you all from England.
Greetings from Skyrim---Oh wait.
Greetings from Narnia
No one has crossed the boundries of religious sancutary before? Tell that to Thomas Becket.
Armidas good one!!
Post - 1400
Becket was a Bishop, not a refugee. There is a difference between religious sanctuary and the sanctity of a church. Both are certainly reprehensible, but the video was correct in saying that Richard violated a principle that no previous king of England had done before.
Tewkesbury abbey was not a designated place of sanctuary.however I take your point as the lancastrians that fled there thought they were safe as Edward IV did not have them removed and executed for 3 or 4 days.this act did then require the abbey church to be re -consercrated
Oh they had, a zillion times. I think the documentary meant they hadn't crossed that line with *her* before.
damn and I thought my family was dysfunctional
if you like dysfunctional family drama's check out the Romans! They regularly killed family member, men, women, children, siblings.
Family dysfunctional, damn the entire English realm was dysfunctional.
@@joybrautigam9529 Ptolemies: That's so sad. Alexa, play Despacito.
Kinda makes us all feel better about our families, doesn't it?
But Richard *did* have a fairly severe spinal curvature. It didn't stop him from being a great warrior or a king and it doesn't make him a villain. Scoliosis happens.
at least he died in battle... loved the documentary where they found a guy with the same spinal curvature, and found out that plate armor helped a lot with his problem.
Yeah, being a kinslaying tyrant made him a villain.
Yes, killing children doesn't make him a villian either. Or does it?
Yea in its eagerness to get away from the 'simple story of evil men' this documentary series wants to paint them all as 'doing their duty'. But of course that's too simple. It's a mix, and Richard was also evil. Most people who murder children are.
When the "eyewitness" testimony of a drunken thief is provided as the sole piece of Tudor evidence, then Tudor propaganda is needed to strengthen the case when you have no body to turn to..
I've been binge watching this series this evening. It's such a fascinating time period and I've learned a lot. Thank you for sharing these. I enjoyed the Plantaganet docs too.
th-cam.com/video/6-kQoKt2Kf4/w-d-xo.html
Rivers must have seemed like a father to young prince
@@margaretbanks8969 he’s said to have been extremely fond of him as well as Richard grey (his half brother another one of Elizabeth Woodville’s sons.) & Thomas Vaughn, his tutor. Young Edward protested over them being arrested & executed & was completely ignored by his uncle Richard. Imo that’s why young Edward could never become king as Richard would’ve been punished, probably executed for that act alone, never mind every other nefarious move he made to secure that crown.
I like this episode because it disproved the common depictions of Richard III while also not justifying any of his horrible actions. Historical figures being portrayed as human beings are the best
which horrible actions? standing up for his family? making the best of a completely screwed up situation?
executing the man who most likely was responsible for his nephews disappearance?
fighting for his crown or dying in battle?
Heidenspross ...whatever our personal bias, Richard was charged with following his brother's wishes.....he certainly didn't do that. The Woodvilles seemed to be greedy, grasping upstarts, but Richard could have dealt with them instead of either: killing the boys, or failing to protect them while they were trapped. Ultimately, Richard's actions (or inactions)resulted in their deaths. Richard acted pretty coldly and unethically.
Vea Del Rosario his “horrible actions” were common in those days, especially if you wanted to survive
@@leanie9660 There is no actual evidence that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the Princes. There is some reason to suspect Buckingham, who had custody of them, and as others have pointed out Henry VII benefited from their deaths. If it was Buckingham, it's a bit rough to blame Richard for inaction, as he would have had no reason to suspect his closest ally; if it was was the Tudor camp, it may have even happened after Richard's death ...
@@clasdauskas The fact that Richard III was Coronated instead of his nephew would suggest that Richard was responsible for their deaths. The fact that Richard III was supposed to be their protectors and that he had them imprisoned in the tower, makes him responsible for whatever happened to them. The fact that neither of the two boys have been seen since 1483 would suggest that something bad happened to them other than them just popping down to the shops to buy a newspaper.
Geez, the monarchy was more like the Mafia back in the day.
Rien Jen *Feudal monarchy
Tony Robinson actually said exactly that in his documentary about Edward iv being illegitimate.
There was really no set legal line of succession the way there is now. There may have been several people with a claim on the throne.
Richard Lahan there was, but a winning army doesn’t care about the line of succession
Hah, I agree.
So it's kind of fitting he was found under a parking lot.
The odds are phenomenal. (Bearing in mind, of course, that he was buried in a church crypt. The car park appeared a few centuries after the building had been razed.)
Even more fitting, Richard was found under the parking lot marked "R".
Have u seen the white queen on Starz if not u should its about all about this time it's wonderful
That’s the problem with putting military men in positions of absolute power. So few of them have the temperament for politics and statecraft.
They also aren't as skilled in the art of Backstabbing and sacrificing soldiers for the sake of their political lives, case in point: Ivy League people in the US political system, they think nothing of the military sacrifices to further advance their political ambitions
@@dennissimo7546 Truly scum and traitors. They bought into corporate socialism because it kept them on top and have all but suppressed our old ideal of a meritocracy where an inherited wealth political aristocracy wasn't allowed and the best could rise to lead us.
@@NemoBlank you're all over the place. "Inherited wealth aristocracy" that's just capitalism being capitalism you know. Meritocracy is mostly a myth. You are stupid but born wealthy? Pay for your degree, hire scientists and workers, and slap your name on everything they produce. Congrats, a lot of people will think you're a genius.
Corporate socialism? Socialism is marked by democratic control of the means of production and workers rights. Which leadership of a corporation is elected by the workers?
“Warrior aren’t suited for statecraft”
Richard III is one of the greatest law givers in the history of this country and within just a 2 year reign
@@fredbarker9201 I don’t think that’s what the OP meant. He could certainly make helpful and effective laws providing that people agreed with him - the issue is that running a country is not the same thing as leading an army and Richard III seemingly struggled to adapt to the reality of being a King. He didn’t have the patience or the temperament to work with the council.
12:03 Richard's collar is held on with a safety pin
I saw that!
I saw a documentary on pinning.recently....but they used straight pins
Lol
It's worth remembering that Richard III had a son of his own in 1483, he didn't need the princes as potential heirs. His son died the following year and after that Richard III's nephew (who was his sister's son) was slowly being positioned as his de facto heir, neither of the Princes in the Tower were even mentioned by then. Buckingham himself rebelled against Richard III in favour of Henry Tudor, not either of the Princes, he was Richard III's chief crony, if they were alive by then he would've known and tried to rescue them or declared in favour of them, since he didn't he likely thought they were dead
The general belief is that Richard III killed his nephews. I believe that there were others who would've benefited from their deaths. Buckingham because he had Plantagenet blood in him, Henry Tudor for the obvious reasons. I personally believe that Thomas Stanley killed them. He had a vested interest in it. He was Henry Tudor's stepfather and he was Richard III's Lord Constable of England. I read somewhere that political prisoners were the responsibility of the Lord Constable of England. All Thomas Stanley needed to do was say to the Constable of the Tower is to do away with the boys and leave no evidence. The Constable of the Tower would've thought that the command came from the king. Richard III had already declared them illegitimate but he may still have done away with them anyway.
@@dorothypozi543 Poor boys.
@@savagedarksider5934 I totally agree with you.
So do i. And if not stanley, then tudor.
Their existence was more of a problem to tudor than anyone else.
Great series of documentaries. Very well done. The presenters' enthusiasm is infectious...reminds me of people like David Attenborough...they just carry you along
Dan Jones is brilliant. I recommend his books to anyone interested in this time period....
Lord Hastings, formerly Simon De Monfort. Also Lord Buckingham, formerly Richard II, and Rivers, formerly Henry II. (if you watched both series)
I knew Rivers looked familiar...now I'm going to have to go back and watch Richard II again
Imagine having to announce his arrival at some international gathering.
I was just about to write about Hastings/Simon de Montford until I found your comment, nice findings.
Buckingham was also a random bishop
Hastings was also formerly Henry Bolingbroke/Henry IV.
Richard may have started this whole mess by attempting to ensure that his dead brother's wishes were obeyed but it quickly devolved into a series of selfish and illegal choices (that he undoubtedly justified to himself) that cost many "inconvenient" people their lives while he maneuvered himself onto the throne.
it was not illegal. Eddie was a bigamist. That's according to the Church, Richard did not write that rule. He flatly stated that he did not want the throne, but of course the Tudor fans choose to ignore that.
@@lefantomer Richard was the virtual lord of the north. He was one of the wealthiest men in England. He was head of the army and the Navy. The Woodville’s, in their attempt to steal control of England, beggared the treasury. Richard had to pay the coronation proceedings for young Edward out of his own pockets. The Woodville’s were trying to strip Richard of everything. They were probably planning to kill him. They tried to remove him from his position in the military, tried to take the protectorate. After Stillington revealed the plight troth, the Council and people urged Richard to take the throne. No one wanted a minor king controlled by the hated Woodvilles
@@nbenefiel Exactly. Most of the "evil murderer of his nephews because Shakespeare says so" advocates have no idea how much responsibility Richard held even before he became king. He was the equivalent of Secretary of State and head of the Joint Chiefs in this country. Or in what high regard he was considered because of his conduct in that capacity. But they'd rather have Shakespeare's scheming villain.
According to his own words to the delegation who pressured him into taking the crown he did not want to do so and preferred to advise his nephew. That's from the minutes of that meeting, not twisted by Morton or More or Shakespeare or movie screen gloating by Sir Lawrence Olivier. But as the delegation led by Buckingham insisted, the people did not want to be ruled by the Woodville clan. In such a case Richard's own life and the survival of his family would indeed have been threatened.
A brief but significant period of English history has been distorted and the achievements of an important Parliament have been buried under a lot of fictional speculation. If only for that reason the facts need to be determined.
at the time of Edward IV’s death the Woodville’s held most of the important jobs, like power of the ships, treasurer along with many more important positions that’s why Hastings tried to warn him that the Woodville’s were gaining power. Richard got his hands on the young king quicker than the Woodville’s, that’s all. Whoever had the young king had the power. He then went onto to commit a lot of nefarious acts which eventually led to the crown being forced upon him…… please. How could he possibly put young Edward on the throne n not lose his own head for the ppl he’s executed to get there. He couldn’t de Woodville the boy. I do imagine the Woodville’s had the exact same idea as Richard but probably thought he meant to rule through the young king. Not very likely murder Edward AND young Richard, the spare? If anyone can ever give me a logical reason why he even had the boys in the same room I’d love to hear it? If he had no bad intentions those boys would’ve been separated in case Edward became mortally ill n they would’ve needed young Richard healthy as he was next in line. For one Prince to meet unfortunate circumstances could’ve passed, might’ve got away with that but both boys c’mon!!!
LindsayCrawford. Clueless comments devoid of research.
That "Seriously ?!?!" had me rolling on the floor laughing.
Got to love a documentary and narrator with a sense of humor
The narrator is actually the author and historian, Dan Jones
@@elinderfler9358 Can U brush ur teeth for ONE minute
If Edward just married for his country a french wife like Warrick had managed to negotiate none of the further blood shed would have happened
even better how about a german princess or duchess?
that alliance would have anihilated the french!
Dana Davison I think it was less about love and more about the fact Edward no longer wanted to be under Warrick's thumb. Warrick's power would be rivalled by only by the King if Warrick had negotiated a marriage. Edward would've been indebted forever. Not to mention the Queen would've had Warrick as an ally and would've undoubtedly influenced the King. Edward learnt from Henry the Sixth's rule. Dan explained that quite well.
If Edward had married as Warwick wanted, the country would still never have been at peace. George would never have been happy....Margaret of Anjou wasn't going to give up, and Margaret Beaufort was a ruthless, fanatical, religion-driven demon. Sadly, the only solution to the family fighting was the annihilation of rival claimants to the throne....which is pretty much what happened.
@Dana Davison Precisely: Henry VIII and Elisabeth were the most horrible bloodthirsty monarch, faaaaaaaaaar more than bloody Mary. Had Edward not married the widow, England wouldn't have suffered under the horrible Tudors
Or if Warwick had not thought himself as being more important the king perhaps there wouldn't have been more bloodshed.
i like how they use the same actors over and over.
Saving those costs on actors and using it on production... or Host Dude's travel costs, IMO
Richard II came back as Buckingham ... Loved it!
Henry II returned to be Rivers... lol
I heard in the next season they're casting one actor to play all the characters.
@@theovolz3073 lmao
I have really REALLY enjoyed these videos! I can't get enough...They have been done wonderfully... easy to understand with a ton of visuals that i desperately need lolol
Same here, I love them!
I agree! I have taken so much history throughout my teen and twenties years. I took some kind of historical education all in my high school days, and then when I decided to go to college after I had gotten pregnant, I had a new respect and understanding for the American and World history of our world. I used to be one of those people who loathed learning anything new about our history, and cultures. Now, I know we need it, but I won't pretend to know it all, nor understand all that I am taught. It takes an effort to want to learn it, and an effort and patience to allow someone else, such as a professor, to teach me. So yeah, just wanna say that, and agree with the commentor.
Chaos is a ladder
@StarDust watch game of thrones..its based “loosely “ on this war.
the 4 scariest words in the English language (ok, aside from "I know a shortcut".....): Let me protect you.
Later, the three scariest became 'Forget the alimony'.
NAH! The 9 scariest words in English are, and have always been: "Were from the gov't, and were here to help..."
Strange that Dan never mentioned how there had been a rumor going around that Edward VI himself wasn't fathered by the Duke of York, and thus not of the Plantagenet line on his father's side. It must have been one of the reasons that Richard felt he had to take the crown himself.
Actually in another documentary, Dan has said that Edward IV was the son of an archer from Rouen, France.
@Carmel Gleeson They even had less celebration at his birth than his brothers because people knew!
@@carmelgleeson5042 Absolutely nothing has been proven either way. Edward IV was definitely very tall and that was a physically trait uncommon among the Yorks but showed up occasionally in the Plantagenet line ( Edward I called Longshanks was quite tall, a son of Edward III Lionel was extremely tall). Not physically resembling the Duke of York proves nothing, he could have physically resembled his mother or others in the Duke of Yorks ancestry. In fact the evidence is clear that his mother carrying on with a low born archer at the time would have been extremely risky but I guess a one off sexual encounter could have been possible. But the rumors of Edwards IV illegitimate birth was started by Richard ( and possibly the mother in a fit of rage) I because of their absolute hatred for Edwards in-laws the Woodvilles and to prevent them from exerting influence on the young king.
It was quite idiotic of him since the Wars of the Roses had only recently ended, and the legitimacy of the York branch not quite established yet. He only endangered his own family's, and therefore his own, position. I think it's proof of the frailty of his cause : he was clinging to any thread, no matter how fragile or dangerous in the long run.
I watched the Timeline Dan Jones series on the Plantagenets yesterday and am making my way through this series on the War of the Roses today. I just wanted to leave a comment on one of these videos mentioning how wildly entertaining I have found both of these series. They have been a wonderful reintroduction to a fascinating period of history. Thank you for the excellent work, it is much appreciated by this regular American guy who forgot a lot of it when he initially learned it years ago in school.
Is it not weird to you that they've cast the same actors to play multiple roles within the one series?
@@bbrown333 Sure. Guess they had a limited budget, lol!
Did anyone notice the scene where the princes were smothered... they were holding hands to the end. That was such a sad but human touch. Anyways, loving these documentaries about the war of the roses. Imagine what a parallel world would look like where the princes were alive and Edward crowned king!
Aw well, the boys grew up separately and didn't know each other. ..
Yes a better lot would be in the seat not this middle class, uncouth & sordid RF that's in position now. They are gauche and befriend obnoxious people like Jimmy Saville, Klaus Schwab & the WEF, Philip, Louis Mountbatten, Charles all in thick with paedophiles.
Time they were moved aside I'm afraid.
Pease ☮️ Out
Richard : i Am LoYaL tO mY lAtE bRoThEr AnD wAnT tO fUlFiLl hIs WiLl
Also Richard : * kills his brother's sons and heirs *
Allegedly
@@DannyBoy777777 C'mon. He did it. Romantic Ricardians need to get a grip.
@@ruthmeb I'm no Richardian. Proper historians have to remain objective, faced with no evidence either way.
@@ruthmeb There's no evidence he killed his nephews
@@ricardo7308 2+2 = 4
That Dan Jones is amazing at communication with gestures and words!
Especially the *"Seriously !?!"* part, that's completely hilarious.
It just breaks my heart when terrible things happen to innocent children
I really like Dan Jones and his documentaries. He really know's how to keep the audience engaged.
Warrick sure was right about those Woodvilles wasn't he?
I wouldn't trust Warrick with anything he said. Nearly every single character in this snapshot of history has been corrupt, power-hungry, and extremely violent. Because of it, England suffered in the Wars of the Roses and people were ruthlessly murdered, including two innocent children. There isn't a side anyone can take without seeing the treachery and gross power lust in the eyes of the leaders in the Council.
It's Warwick!!
wqrick just didnt like anyone who upstaged his power
They didn't deserve this.
WARWICK
Exciting documentary, indeed. It is amazing how Jones mixes the historical facts and the dramatic development of a tyrant's mind. He is an excellent historian.
I don't buy the proposition that "Richard III started out with good intentions". Everything he did was to secure the crown for himself.
I dunno. I'm still a fan of the Margaret Beaufort theory. She and her son as much, if not more to gain by getting the princes out of the way.
@@MarieAnne. My money's on Buckingham doing the dirty work. It might have been the reason why they fell out. Truth is no one really knows except the person who did it.
Margaret did plot with Buckingham later on and Buckingham is the most likely suspect in directly murdering them. He was connected to both main figures who had a lot to gain from the princes being dead. What if Buckingham did it on Margaret's orders and Richard found out and to save his skin Buckingham rebelled? Richard was not dumb, he knew how easy children die, he still needed his nephews as he had only one son, not even daughters, and his nephew by George was a simple-minded child, another Henry VI so useless to Richard.
I think Buckingham actrd without Richard's approval or even under someone elses orders and that led to them falling out.
It all points to Richard, but what concernes me is that Henry VII gave back titles to his wifes brothers after their wedding. At that time people were spreading stories that two boys might be alive, how could he be so sure that theyre actually dead. Unless, someone told him that, someone that knows it for certain. His mother? Lord Stanley? I know that he also did it for Elizabeth of Yorks legitimacy but still, Margaret wrote to Elizabeth Woodville while she was in Westminster abbey to support Henry and her daughters marriage and his claim to the throne. At that time no one knew were princes alive or not. How could she be so sure that Woodville will support his claim UNLESS...
Also when Henry VII speaks of Richard III's crimes he calls him tyrant and lists all he bad things he did, but he never calls him a murderer. Why? Because he knew Richard didn't kill them. Unless they were still alive , like some people seem to believe
Yes! So True!
So he committed murder multiple times, including against close friends, locked both his nephews and murdered them too, tried to manipulate the law and his power in his own advantage with obvious lies, all to his own personal advantage, and all because of a "personal perspective" and not because he was a bad person? Really?
ifty hargil Henry VII and his family probably killed the princes
Fred Barker
Just following the narrative presented.
It's obvious he is quite alarmingly senile but he would have been really out of power or worse had he not done what he had due in fact to him arresting the Kings uncle. Plus he had that weird beef with the woodvills he would have been so screwed if any of the boys would have been King.
Richard no more killed those boys in the tower than Cookie Monster left Sesame Street and became a key figure in the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala.
The Woodvilles were distrusted and hated by many in England. The Lancastrians hated them and many of the Yorkists did too. Elizabeth, Edward IV's wife, obtained so many positions for her family and married her family into all the most powerful families with the objective to control that power. Basically, the Woodvilles aimed to take complete control of England and Edward V. The English crown would not have survived that.
Richard was caught between the power hungry Woodvilles and the majority of the country. In no way was it clear cut, for the sake of the country the Woodvilles had to be taken down a few pegs but that created an untenable position, for if Richard resigned control would have gone to the Woodvilles.
Henry VII, a Lancastrian who defeated Richard III, solved this conundrum beautifully by marrying Edward IV's and Elizabeth Woodville's daughter. As such the marriage brought the Lancastrians, Yorkists and the Woodvilles all into the union to form a new house - the Tudors.
A fascinating and pivotal period in English History.
More than many people can ever imagine.
A marvellous record of
The Wars of The Roses. Thank you.
His skeleton, discovered in 2012 under a Leicester City Council parking lot, showed a severe curvature of the spine due to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. He also had worms (as did many people in Medieval Europe).
The princes in the tower has always been my favourite tale
Ive heard Tyrion was based on Richard III but I keep being reminded of Stannis
Nameless Entity It depends on what you think about Richard lll
Im not sure what to think honestly. Ive heard that hes not the monster history has made him out to be but ive never heard a good explanation as to why. From this series he sounds nothing like Tyrion, seems like a bad guy and reminded me of Stannis so maybe I need to watch a doc specifically on Richard III
F L In the books, Stannis wasn’t that bad of a guy from what I remember. Personally, I think Richard could be a mix between Tyrion and Stannis.
Remember stannis!!!
@@effingel stannis is not a bad guy read the books he is way more complexe than this and honestly the best choice for a king this richard remind me of both tywin and tyrion
Host: “I’m going to show you that Richard III wasn’t a murderous monster.”
Proceeds to show how Richard III was a murderous monster for 45 min
11:54 clock that safety pin on his shoulder. Damn 1400s!!
It was him... EDNA!!!
These Time-Line episodes are amazing. They are very well produced. The costumes are fantastic. The actors superb. The narrator showing actual locations of historical moments. The visits to the National Archives with texts written in hands long since dead, Just amazing!
it's actually a channel 5 documentary
For someone like me who loves history and being more of a visual learner, these are wonderful! You just couldn’t make these stories up any better!
I think he real culprit who would have benefited from the princes deaths was Henry (VII) Tudor. By wiping out the last of the House of Plantagenet it made it easy for the Tudors claim the throne.
@@EvanSol919 - Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, was in the thick of it and never left England. Margaret was also married to Sir Henry Stafford, uncle of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, who just so happened to be Richard III's pal. It's all a little too easy really.
Buckingham whispers the right things into Richard's ear, increasing his paranoia. Ultimately making it much easier for Henry Tudor to pull support and win the crown by conquest.
We will never know the real reason for the death of the Princes but it seems fairly certain that Richard was the author of their deaths.
Luubelaar precisely when people blame Henry VII, we tend to mean his mother Beaufort who was at the royal court.
@@Luubelaar Sir Henry Stafford died in 1971, a year after Edward V was born. Are you saying that Margaret and her husband conspired with his nephew to kill a one year old and his brother who'd not yet even been conceived?
You're phrasing your theory all wrong. You shouldn't mention Margaret's husband and his relation to the Duke of Buckingham. The Duke of Buckingham was Margaret's cousin anyway! You should just say that the Duke of Buckingham revolted against Richard III the year the princes disappeared to put Henry Tudor on the throne. That explains it all without making you look stupid.
@@Luubelaar It's not really clear why Richard and Buckingham had such a bitter falling out, but it certainly seemed to happen shortly after the last sighting of the Princes. It seems to me that Buckingham, with the Princes now out of the way and Richard blamed for it, no longer had to keep up the pretense of being his friend and his real intentions could be revealed. It is telling that Buckingham's rebellion started as a bid to restore Edward V, but quickly switched to Henry ... If Buckingham turned against Richard because he discovered he had killed Edward this wouldn't make sense. However, if Buckingham himself had conspired to kill the Princes it would make a convenient excuse to start a rebellion. A rebellion which, once started, could be turned toward his true goal of putting Henry on the Throne.
Given the way the Tudors masterfully manipulated and/or killed everyone around them after taking power, it would not surprise me at all if they completely orchestrated the entire rise and fall of Richard III to pave the way.
Wasn’t Buckingham married to the Widowed Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s sister? So he was also the young King’s uncle and he is thought to be their killer. Poor kids murdered by uncles on both sides of their family.
Thank you for sharing this with us! This series is brilliantly done! Your commentaries are so interesting and explain what is happening very clearly! I hated history in high school but had my teacher been able to explain the way you do in these series. I would've been a history buff!
i cant tell you i how much ive enjoyed watching your movies. im obsessed with this specific period
I wish they'd introduced Richard a bit more in the previous video.
They also didn't mention his other brother George the duke of Clarence
Richard was only 20 in the battle of Barnet so was irrelevant to that story.
@@WilliamRobinson-bb6mr Richard fought at Barnet and was in charge of Edward's right wing
@@harryobrien4394 And I believe he was at Tewskbury too.
Thank you for the upload
Thanks to all those at Timeline who makes these wonderful documentaries possible. They are really my favourite and as a history lover this is gold to me.
I don’t think he’s very objective about his opinions about Richard III apparent “guilt.”
Dan is an amazing historian. Passion goes a long way. thx for the videos. very inspirational and fun :)
We are so fond of heroes and villains but people are rarely that uncomplicated. Really good episode!
Killing Edward V and Richard of York is the complete opposite of "doing what his brother wanted" for Richard.
I love how Timeline give us these documentaries. So entertaining and well structured
The actor who played Simon de Montfort is playing lord Hastings here
They reused most of the actors. I´m glad someone else noticed.
the one who played Buckingham in this was the mad king in another one
So he should be good at historic characters who end up dead.
Fairly certain that the Earl of Rivers used to be Henry II. And the Earl of Buckingham used to be Richard II. Man they downgraded after they died.
@@amazed92 Richard the 2nd. Richard the 2nd wound up being Richard the 3r'd lackey.
You have to turn this story on its head, or at least this version of the tale. What would the Woodvilles have done to Richard, the king's brother, if he had backed the Princes' claim to the throne? It's a very bloody period in history and to be fair, they would probably have killed Richard to ensure he had no lineage that might have come to prominence.
I don't believe they would have killed Richard had he backed his brothers son claim.
They desperately needed the support and were in a precarious position.
Now any sons he himself had? Probably would have had an " accident " by woodville hands.
If Richards son had been to ambitious
I doubt it, they needed all the support they could get, and if he doesn't show any signs of not being genuine he's a very valuable ally
I wish there was something like this for Dutch history.
th-cam.com/users/RogerNetherlands4Uvideos There is a few documentaries on there. I don't think their as good as these one's though.
Anyone notice the actor playing Richard II is Buckingham here?
yep
yeah!!!
Henry II is rivers here
its because of incest
@@marcfrancisteodoro7720 oh wow, didn't notice until you said it, now I can't unsee it :-D
Richard III was really doing exactly what his era demanded.
can we appreciate the fact that at 14:06 he used gloves
It amazes me how they can track people down fairly quickly without GPS, especially when out hunting. I can't find my way out of my own freakin' neighborhood. But, then again, I live in CA where none of the streets are set up in any logical order.
Dave Grohl was perfectly cast as Richard.
He wished.......thought it was Noel Gallagher though....
Did Richard have a beard?
Sorry GW, can't agree on that one.
Really?... He looks nothing like Richard III.
Lol
i thought i also saw the actor who played Richard II
I think I'd rather have been a Peasant. So much less complicated.
I always think the sudden unexplained death of Edward IV was rather mysterious. I offer without evidence a hypothesis that he was poisoned.
He just drank and ate and whored his way to an early grave, that's all
Lannisters always pay their debts
HOOPER MIXTAPE *Lancasters
*Lancastrians
Lol
GOT references are stupid and the product of a weak mind
Its interesting that a major player in this drama is never mentioned; John, Lord Howard. He had served with Richard and was regarded as a friend. In addition he had a major grievance with the young prince Richard.
When the last of the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk died in 1475, Edward bestowed the lands and title on prince Richard, making him Duke of York and Norfolk. John, Lord Howard regarded that title as rightfully his. When Richard proclaimed himself King, at his side was Howard, and one of his first proclamations was one bestowing the lands and title of Duke of Norfolk on Howard. Indeed, Howard remained steadfastly loyal to Richard till his death at Bosworth.
I love this stuff. If it was explained like this when I was in formative school I probably would have paid attention.
Amazing series, Well done!!!
Elizabeth might have been better off to keep her son and let Richard break the religious sanctuary laws. That may have brought the Pope to bear on the situation and I wonder what would have happened then...
Aren’t they Anglican?
@@legendarysixsamurai-shien402 England has yet to break away from the Catholic Church during this time.
@@legendarysixsamurai-shien402 Richard III was the King before Henry VIII's father.
This is before the Reformation in Europe and Henry VIII breaking with Rome. All Christians are this time were Catholic.
Yea at least she could have one son left with her
It is foolish to say that Richard would benefit the most from the death of the young Princes when Lady Stanley (Margaret Beaufort) would have EVERYTHING for her son if the decks were cleared - and she did. Her son became Henry VII - her lifelong dream and whole reason for being. Amazing how the decks WERE suddenly cleared, is it not? Talk about dominoes falling into place. Princes disappearing, Lord Stanley changing sides at Bosworth Field, Richard's heir already dead. A clear field. Better yet, already a proposal to marry Princess Elizabeth of York to Henry - as yet an outcast. Seems like a plan to me!
I like this better, like in sharon kay penmans book
Yes - and it was not Richard who proclaimed the princes illegitimate but the Archbishop of Stillington who attended the marriage of Edward with Lady Eleanore Butler - and he still was married to her when he later married Elizabeth Woodville. In addition even the Parliament passed al law - the "Titulus Regis" - which stated that the princes were illegitimate. So they were no threat to Richard at all who was therfore the rightful king. But they would have been a constant threat to the Beaufort Family and Henry VII whose claim to the throne was even more illegitimate than theirs.
I think that if the princes were killed by Richard III or Margaret Beaufort then either party would have produced the bodies, as it would help either claim to the throne, and would have prevented false claims of being one of the princes. There is no genetic proof that the bodies found in the tower were the princes, and until that is determined it's all speculation.
43:00 Actually, there are two other likely culprits with the motive and the means: the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Berkeley, both of whom stood to gain a lot with the death of both brothers: "Anne [Mowbray, Duchess of Norfolk] died at Greenwich in London, nearly two years before her husband disappeared into the Tower of London with his older brother, Edward V. Upon her death, her heirs normally would have been her cousins, William, Viscount Berkeley and John, Lord Howard, but by an act of Parliament in January 1483 the rights were given to her husband Richard, with reversion to his descendants, and, failing that, to the descendants of his father Edward IV" - Wikipedia.
@@gregsarnecki7581 What makes things even stranger is that Elizabeth of York doesn't seem to have had any antipathy to either her uncle or her husband, which you'd expect if she blamed one of them for the death/ disappearance of her brothers.
This is part of history where every book you read every documentary you watch, you go - of course he/she did it. Richard III could have arranged it, Henry Tudor VII of course could have done it because without that his marriage to Elizabeth of York would have been worthless. Of course Henry's mother could have done it as she had conived for years to get him to the throne. Then of course M J Trow's book suggests a serial killer doctor was at large - same doctor for princes and Prince Arthur and many others. My last book is by a Scotland Yard detective and he has Henry VII as the murderer by using detective methods of investigation rather than historical records. Then of course there were the pretenders ........................... This is what makes history great.
Excellent!! This series is brilliant!
This is the most dramatic history lesson I have ever had
With videos such as this each person has a deeper insight into history much more exciting than any action movie.
Dan is pretty damn close to my ideal husband. Handsome, funny, tattooed, down to earth and obsessed with history❤️
Pillow Princess and glasses
and married
and he lies to his daughter
Jesus Is Lord So what?
You're thinking of the other historian Dan, Dan Snow...
Such an amazing documentary!!! Thank you
This is how history should be taught. The cast is brilliant and the actors are supremely talented. Is it my imagination or do the actors play different roles like an ensemble? No complaints coz they’re awesome. Pretty sure Buckingham was one of the Edwards in the Plantagenet series.
Why on earth do they use a person who looks 20 years old at least to be a 12 year old? This is ridiculous. And we, the viewers, are seen as fools.
Allyson Young hush!
Don’t like it? Make your own documentary 😘
You have hundreds of years of male actors playing women in English theater, and you have a problem with a 20 year old playing a 12 yr old
I guess the insurance wouldn't let them hire a minor, and they had to put up with whatever they had at their disposal.
I watched the GoT and Richard 3 is all the whole 8 series rolled in 1, LOL
not wrong tbh
jesus does that make Richard III daenerys???
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
oops at 12:01...Richard's livery collar was secured with a safety pin.
I'm amazed to see Dan wearing protective gloves while handling an ancient manuscript
There might be different rules in France than in the UK.
These are excellent documentaries. Totally engrossing. Dan Jones is a top notch presenter.
11:54 I spy a safety pin. Very historically accurate.
All sarcasm aside, I love these documentaries and they are both enjoyable and well made
Love this documentary so far part 1 and 2 was good hope this will better one
Stannis Baratheon of Game of Thrones is Richard III is so obvious... Brilliant military commander , put down a rebellion at north of england (scotland) which is basically wildlings then afterwards comes in south and take the throne...
erinç varol I know Robert Baratheon is based on Edward IV, and Eddard Stark (loosely) on Lord Hastings. Martin himself said this. I agree, Stannis does appear to be based on Richard III
KellieSand04 actually grrm mixed up history a little bit...eddard stark is the duke of york ( richard) father of edward 4 suits better than hasting. Edward 4 is rob stark than robert baratheon because he weds minor lady instead of french princess( jeyne westerling instead of walder fray daughter) which is big mistake. In the end little bit of that and little bit of those...
Not trying to sound like I'm defending Richard if he DID in fact kill the two princes, but I have to be honest I have my doubts that he did. Obviously it would make perfect sense for him to do so to be declared king and keep his crown, but if it's true that the princes doctor was as often at the Tower as some sources have claimed I think it's very possible that the young king and his brother could have died of some illness. After all if neither of them are ill in any way, why is it stated that their doctor is so often there with them? If the young king fell ill and his illness was contagious it would come as no surprise that young Richard would become ill as well and rather quickly considering they shared their room. It's also possible considering that the bodies were supposedly never found in the tower, that they were sent away possibly north to Scotland or Ireland or even to somewhere in Europe and they lived out their lives in exile. Honestly if they were murdered I think the MOST likely person to be responsible would have been Henry Tudor more so than Richard. The two boys were declared unable to rule England anyway so to me that's one less reason for Richard to have them killed since the fact that he was the ONLY other person who would have any real claim to the throne, he would be the rightful king. Since his brother Clarence had been executed for treason by Edward the 4th, none of his children would have any right to the crown. I think the most likely scenario is that either they were killed by Henry Tudor OR Richard III sent them into exile and then they just got screwed over even more when Henry usurped the throne from Richard
I want more of these. I love the reenactments and Dan Jones(think right name). Anyone know of other history reenactment tellings like this?
This richard actor is good,give off a very strong michael corleone vibe,buckingham actor is cool too
This is classic of absolute power corrupts absolutely
Lord Acton's words were true. Richard's mind was corrupted by power.
That's right, that is true, and that is one of the oldest sayings in the book, about a tyrannical society and dictators and government.
Incorrect...absolute power attracts the corruptible.
I don’t think richard benefitted the most from the princes death. I genuinely cant believe beaufort hasn’t been mentioned earlier. She knew well that her son had a Lancastrian claim to the throne and I believe she was always going to use it. Henry was hiding and waiting for a time to strike, if he did while they were still alive there were still two stronger claims than his own even if he defeated Richard. I think Margeret caused some friction between Richard and Elizabeth before they could trust each other so they could get rid of each other leaving henry to claim the throne. I dont think Richard was as willing to commit ‘murder’ as its put out to be. I will forever think Beaufort had something to do with their deaths.
I like how Richard apologists will point at anyone else besides Richard to be the killers. Margaret may have had notice but only Richard had motive means and opportunity
LyricalXilence Its all perspective. You know no more than he does so do not claim to
Look we dont know who killed the princes. In my opinion it was definitely Richard III though. He fought through the battles of the time. He saw the issues with his brother keeping Henry VI as a prisoner instead of killing him, which prolonged the civil war and caused many more battles. Even though his brother did it to keep the Lancaster's from flocking to Henry VI's son Edward of Westminster. Granted though in this time in history with how things worked and with the Woodvilles totally dismissing him I can see why he did the things he did. Some of his actions could be seen as the normal and proper way to behave at that time when your royalty and you have been disrespected. He just went too far by stealing his nephews crown and locking him and and his other other nephew in the tower. Bc even if he didnt order their deaths he put them in the tower and made them vulnerable to things happening, so even if it wasnt his orders he is just as responsible for their deaths for putting them in that situation. Furthermore let's not forget along with Earl Rivers Richard III also executed one of Elizabeth Woodvilles sons, Richard Gray, from her first marriage. So Edward V and Elizabeth Woodville and all her children would never forgive him for this, for killing her son and one of their brothers. By doing that Richard III knew he was making himself the Woodvilles and his nephews forever enemy so then he took the crown. To Richard III his actions were probably similar to King John who killed his nephew prince Arthur, to stay the King from years before. The only problem is the country didnt accept it and as such he turned enough of the country against himself and they supported the next best alternative, the last Lancasterian descendant, Henry Tudor/Henry VII. and u cant blame Henry Tudor for wagging war and going for the crown when the opportunity presented itself and when he finally had the chance to restore the Lancaster line to the throne when they suffered for years after being kicked off the throne.
Why would richardlll put prince richard the youngest prince in tower too if he was innucent. Maybe he let in margerwt and buckinghams men and made them do the dirty work maybe they made some kind of deal planning to stab each other afterwards
I would definitely say she knew well her son had a claim to the throne considering she herself was the claim...
These docs are fantastic.