There is more documentaries and evidence about the princes and those who support Mancini and Saint Thomas More. Only when. And they will agree the bones are found this case will be closed.
@@catherinenewman6516 Oh boy, that's your only comment?! Yes, He's More. Except that there was no standardized spelling in those days, Karen. So actually, you could well be wrong, Moore being but a variation. Now, back to my original question. I'll be waiting.
His father John, who was one of his sources according to Thomas‘ own words, was close to the Capell family, cousins and nephews of James Tyrell. The capells financed Thomas Tyrell, James‘ son, for a time. John More was the lawyer handling these loans.
Gossip: people like speaking of great men and women and their deeds and misdeeds: read Pepys, Greville, Chips Channon &c. Closely associated with gossip is another populr pastime, the creation and spread of rumour. Here is one example I heard and read in print: that in the summer of 1940 a group of army officers planned to shoot Sir Oswald Mosley in the event of a German invasion and so preent him become gauleiter of Britain if it succeeded.
Isn't it true that in the very first sentence of More's history there was a whopping inaccuracy about the length of Edward IV's reign that must have been included as a deliberate red flag as if to say "Everything in the following account is complete nonsense".
He would have known and spoken to many who lived through and remembered these events. I was born in 1943 and have spoken to many who lived through both world wars and even suvivors of the Boer war. Their memories were vivid and detailed:
@@lawrencejames8011 Either vivid or detailed, or exaggerated and biased? Henry VII sat precariously on the throne, seen by many as an usurper. His supporters would've wanted to strengthen his claim by demonising his opponent/s. Therein lies the conundrum, surely?
He faced several alternative monarchs. Lambert Simnel an imposter Yorkist whose forces were trounced at Stoke-by-Newark and another Perkin Warbeck who attracted a minute following from the aristocratic power brokers. Neither was convincing.
Pure Tudor propaganda by a guy who got his information second-hand from one of Richard's worst enemies- More's stepfather- who is more famous for being a martyr than for making dozens of them himself!
Thank you for the video I hope one day this case will be solved and the princes can rest in peace.
Great upload SDB one of my favourite topics x
Mine too!
There is more documentaries and evidence about the princes and those who support Mancini and Saint Thomas More. Only when. And they will agree the bones are found this case will be closed.
But how could Moore have known what happened in so much detail? How much was conjecture and 'artistic licence'?
@@kelrogers8480 more not Moore
@@catherinenewman6516 Oh boy, that's your only comment?! Yes, He's More. Except that there was no standardized spelling in those days, Karen. So actually, you could well be wrong, Moore being but a variation. Now, back to my original question. I'll be waiting.
His father John, who was one of his sources according to Thomas‘ own words, was close to the Capell family, cousins and nephews of James Tyrell. The capells financed Thomas Tyrell, James‘ son, for a time. John More was the lawyer handling these loans.
@davidweiss5000 interesting. So someone, somewhere talked freely about a murder.
Gossip: people like speaking of great men and women and their deeds and misdeeds: read Pepys, Greville, Chips Channon &c. Closely associated with gossip is another populr pastime, the creation and spread of rumour. Here is one example I heard and read in print: that in the summer of 1940 a group of army officers planned to shoot Sir Oswald Mosley in the event of a German invasion and so preent him become gauleiter of Britain if it succeeded.
The bones could be animal bones
At one time there was a zoo at the tower
Everything More wrote down is here say. He was only three years old when this happened.
Isn't it true that in the very first sentence of More's history there was a whopping inaccuracy about the length of Edward IV's reign that must have been included as a deliberate red flag as if to say "Everything in the following account is complete nonsense".
You have a vivid imagination: a slip of the pen is not conclusivee historical evidence.
No, he got Edward‘s age wrong by two years.
Pure Tudor propaganda. Thomas More was far from a contemporary of Richard III.
He would have known and spoken to many who lived through and remembered these events. I was born in 1943 and have spoken to many who lived through both world wars and even suvivors of the Boer war. Their memories were vivid and detailed:
@@lawrencejames8011 Either vivid or detailed, or exaggerated and biased? Henry VII sat precariously on the throne, seen by many as an usurper. His supporters would've wanted to strengthen his claim by demonising his opponent/s. Therein lies the conundrum, surely?
He faced several alternative monarchs. Lambert Simnel an imposter Yorkist whose forces were trounced at Stoke-by-Newark and another Perkin Warbeck who attracted a minute following from the aristocratic power brokers. Neither was convincing.
No point in denoucing Rixhard then because he was dead and no threat.
Really - what did Henry gain from bad mouthing a dead rival ?
Pure Tudor propaganda by a guy who got his information second-hand from one of Richard's worst enemies- More's stepfather- who is more famous for being a martyr than for making dozens of them himself!
Tudor propaganda.
The Tudors needed no propaganda: contemporaries would have regarded Richard's defeat and death as the working of Divine providence.