What do you think happened to the 'Princes in the Tower'? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling and also my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Despite the disbelief of the Richard III Society, I really think that Richard planned the murder of the princes...why else would he have "needed" BOTH boys under his "protection". His claim that Edward needed his little brother to help him prepare for his coronation is absurd. It would have made more sense for Edward to need his mother (and if neither Elizabeth Woodville nor Richard could agree about this, surely Edward's eldest sister Elizabeth would have been a better choice than a child). The only reason to need both boys was to ensure that Edward's little brother could not become heir to the throne once Richard got rid of Edward. Why were the bodies not displayed as proof that the boys were truly dead ? Well, naturally, Richard would know that bodies of children would be considered monstrous (even to late 15th century Englanders), and he wanted the whole thing to go away without tarnishing him too much....and their bodies would have shown proof of murder most foul. Sadly, while I always wanted to believe that Richard III was framed by the Tudors, I really think that he ordered it. As you said, "Richard was no teddy bear." Nope...he was a typically ruthless Plantagenate.
I think you have to resort to the old "motive/means/opportunity" adage. By this criteria, it's down to Richard, which is my personal belief. In spite of all the whitewashing from the Richard III society, it is actually possible to be an excellent administrator, warrior and even king and still be guilty of murder. People have a hard time understanding the murder of children, and one's own nephews, at that. But I think the circumstances can help you to understand why and how Richard may have come to the conclusion that it was necessary and that it was a personal life or death situation for him . He spent very little time at court and was always either away up north or acting on his brother's commands. I doubt if he ever developed a personal relationship with his nephews, who perhaps he saw once a year at Christmas. And I don't think you can underestimate his hatred for the Woodvilles, which was reciprocated. They had built up a lot of resentment at court by their pretentions and grasping ways. It is possible that it boiled down to a "me or them" situation for Richard. The alarm bells went off when Edward IV died, and he had to hurry south to insure that he became the Protector, as Edward had indicated in his will. From then on, it seems more like Richard reacting to circumstances as they happened, rather than following a well-thought out plan to seize the throne.
I think at best, Richard allowed/ignored the murder of the boys. He truly does make the most sense. Also if he truly believed, or convinced himself, that the boys were illegitimate he may have used that to help justify needing to rid of them.
I find it morbidly funny how there are several child skeletons that were found in the tower, and they just aren't sure which set of child skeletons could be the princes.
Yes, it is odd to our eyes the number of bones found. It just shows how many people have died in there during the building's history I guess (excluding the ones buried in the Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula).
Sweet Meats, which begs the question 'why won't the current royals allow dna testing on the bones?''. They know it can be done, as Richard III's remains were positively identified in 2012. Are they afraid of some secret being revealed?
@@susanmccormick6022 apparently a doctor who visited him regularly reports him praying, preparing himself for death. He’d probably already been warned he wasn’t safe. Plus he witnessed Earl Rivers, (his uncle) Richard Grey (his half brother) & Thomas Vaughan (his tutor) being arrested by Richard (while the young king protested their innocence & was ignored) so he had a 1st hand account of how determined Richard was to seize power. I imagine when hearing the news of the 3 men mentioned being executed that he knew Richard could never let him be king. Edward IV made a grave mistake appointing one man as lord protector (Richard, practically a stranger to prince Edward) & a whole other faction of men to raise him tutor him, men he formed bonds with. There was bound to be chaos when he died.
@@lyndsaycrawford Rivers and Grey committed treason, check Annette Carson´s detailed article The mysterious affair at Stony Stratford. Youg Edward was praying because it was part of his daily routine like for millions of other people. It´s 100 % sure that Richard didn´t even think about seizing the power. On the contrary, everywhere they stop on the way to London he ask everyone to take an oath to the new king Edward. As Richard was very pious he didn´t take this lightly, it was very serious matter for him.
It would be interesting to see the financial ledgers of the Tower, as they would likely show the changes in cost of food, laundry and staffing, once the boys had alledgedly been murdered.
I know for Henry Pole, another child locked up by Henry viii, the ledger shows he was no longer being fed after 1542. His grandmother was killed in 1541. He is another missing child. He was more than likely killed from starvation. He was a descendent of the Plantagenet which is why I think he was ultimately killed.
Poor Elizabeth Woodville. Death of children at that time was certainly not uncommon, but to lose three of your children to, essentially, murder all within months of each other…I doubt she ever got over that. 💔
@@edithengel2284 : henry tudor, has never been viewed as a suspect, only the historian phillippa gregory in her novel & drama... the white queen... he spent most of his life in exile in brittany & wales, far away from the tower of london.. there is a hidden or unkown house of beaufourt, that york, plantagenet,lancaster and tudor are related ... richard III & the duke of buckingham both had a motive to remove or make the * princes dissapear*, or claim they were illegitmate, the later duke of buckingham rebellion is still unexplained and every historian disagrees with each other... richard III never publicly said he executed them, or not, or did what henry VII had done, too the crowds of london, make earl of warwick appear... no bodies were ever found, no evidence that either richard III or henry VII ever executed them, endless speculation and 2 pretenders , officially one was crowned king of ireland, later was a kitchen servant... the other perkin warbek fooled half of kings of europe...and was officially executed , after a planned escape with the earl of warkwick... philippa langley, the woman that found richard III in the car park, was called a *mad woman for even trying* , is now behind the project to *find the missing princes* , did one of the princes become a lord in devon, the clue is in the church?
@@edithengel2284Clearly she didn't think he was. Marrying her daughter to their dynastic rivals would have condemned her sons to death. She clearly thought they were already dead. Unless Henry somehow killed them while in France in England's primary stronghold she never would have considered him responsible.
@@hellsjamfleas I agree that she believed her sons were not alive; by the time Princess Elizabeth married Henry, I'm sure her mother believed the princes were dead. However, even if the senior Elizabeth thought Henry had had something to do with their deaths, it would hardly have been either safe or pragmatic to deny him her daughter, so it would be impossible to tell if she suspected him. In fact, I was not so much saying that she herself believed Henry was behind their deaths, as that it is painful to think that in addition to everything else the family had suffered, it was not beyond the possible that Elizabeth had married the man responsible for her brothers' deaths.
Do you really think that Elizabeth Woodville, if she thought her brother in law murdered her young sons, would have left sanctuary, entrusted her daughters to his care and entreated her son by her first husband to return to England and make peace with Richard? She also received land and a generous stipend from Richard. Soon after marrying her daughter Henry VII, stripped her of everything she owned and forced her into a convent to be locked up for the rest of her life.
What I find puzzling is the fact that Richard apparently had his nephews secretly killed, but then relied on everyone just forgetting about them! Why in the world would he think that? Why wouldn't he explain their absence in some way that would enable the public to absolve him? For instance, "Sadly, the young princes contracted the sweating sickness while they were under protection in the Tower. They will be buried together with all honors" etc. Even taking into account the fact that he had declared them illegitimate, he should still have had to explain what became of them! Whether illegitimate or not, they were still the sons of the former King. It just seems to me that Richard should have been aware of the public's speculation at the time, and taken steps to mitigate their suspicion.
Maybe he just assumed that since he was de-facto Regent even while the boys were alive, and once he took the throne (quickly), nobody would dare try to take it away or challenge him. The Woodvilles would have no political power to hurt him if the boys were dead. Almost as if he were saying "What princes do you mean? I'm the King, i don't have to explain anything. Now do something about it if you dare." I think public opinion was less important back then when it came to monarchs with actual power (and Richard wasn't the only one of the dead King's relations who hated the Woodvilles). Everyone would have suspected he did it, but keep your mouth shut about it publicly or it might be treason.
The entire Nobility hated the Woodvilles, as they were "of vile birth". Also, Richard was Edward IVs' right hand, a competent politician, and administrator of the North.
No, YOU deserve a gold star for producing such well researched and expertly commented videos! I enjoy them hugely. As I've seen a loooot of documentaries on the Tudors etc. I appreciate new perspectives from original sources. Especially when you give such great context for all of them! ⭐
YOU deserve a gold star for presenting such a thorough examination! I love that you mention the un-glamorous yet telling evidence of the mundane laundry and foodstuffs. Would there be any way to examine the ledgers of the tower during a time when the boys were known to be alive and in residence, and compare over time to see if there is a noticeable change?
In my opinion Richard had the boys killed. They disappeared whilst under his care, their existence was a possible threat to his kingship, and he had already proved himself utterly ruthless when it came to removing anyone who stood in his way.
The woman who was instrumental in finding Richard's place of burial in Leicester is now looking at the fate of his nephews, the Princes. (Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society.) She did amazing work and should have had greater acclaim.
She hasnt found proof. The one lettrr that says "son of King Edward of England or similar, could well mean Edward IV s illegimate son or Warbeck who later was a proven imposter.
I saw her documentary on the fate of the boys … It’s honestly all speculation and hyped up nonsense with a reliance on foreign sources with a total biased agenda😱
She is not an unbiased source however, as she is obsessed with Richard to the point of being infatuated with him. You need someone with an open mind, like the narrator of this video.
I don't know if she's mastered cloning technology but how in the world does she manage to get these long, detailed posts out week after week? I watch channels that can't get a 15 minute post out twice a month and she's putting out a weekly documentary. I'm exhausted just thinking about it. ;-) Cheers.
Researching and quoting sources, images, writing the script, editing the whole thing together, uploading & filling in the TH-cam channels sections, then answering the comments... my theory is that History Calling is actually a secretive group of several rogue, out of control Historians who don't follow the rules, answer to no master, talk loudly in libraries while traveling far and wide, researching and uploading the TRUTH about History!! 😲 Or maybe she just works really hard.😁
It's just lots of hard work I'm afraid. I will say though that videos on the Tudors (of which I do quite a few) tend to go faster because at this point, I've already researched a lot of the images I need.
I had a Mideival History Professor in Grad School compare the Kings and Queens of Plantagenet, York and Tudor lines to the Mob Bosses of the 20th Century. He made the argument that Richard would have most likely quietly ordered someone expendable to carry out the murders. The disappearance of the Prince's would have erased competition for his son Edward of Middleham. Edward died a year after the last sighting of the two Prince's making their murders even more pointless.
The royal families of Europe were quite ruthless in order to maintain their positions and lineages, although the death of the boys was tragic, I doubt very much if murder would have been so unusual at that time.
In reality Queen Elizabeth shouldn't even be on the throne. A guy in Australia should be the rightful King but he wants no part of it all. The man about 2 or more years back who did accoupple of videos on the subject, proving what he was saying just dissapeared from You Tube along with his videos. Well...they did get rid of Princess Diana and crew way back so Dianna couldn't marry a guy the Royals dissaproved of and then they pretended to burry the body on that island where they burried their pets. They actually had her body burned. For those who might go bonkers about the above statements, sorry about that. It's done and gone. Arguments aren't going to bring back the dead. I mean no disrespecting the Royals in charge or anything, it's just this video proves the whole point of what folks will do to stay in power. Look at all the corruption in the U.S. government right now run by commies, Obama and the puppetmasters controling Sniffy & Cameltoe. Useing thousands and thousands of printed out PHONEY BALLOTS BEING PUT INTO RIGGED VOTEING MACHINES HOOKED UP TO SATALITES THAT CHANGED TRUMP'S VOTES TO Biden votes ! Obama is playing President though his puppet Biden so it's not just a 'Royal Family' thing, it's a some people will do pretty much anything to gain power and to keep it.
@@ghostcityshelton9378 Well your heads in the right place by not trusting them but you are wrong about US politics. Its not run by commies its run by bankers. Obama Biden, Trump, all of them are actors reading scripts with no power at all. They are puppets to the real people in charge, And the elections aren't rigged they are fake. There is a big difference. Its all a fake show to keep us all divided, a soap opera, while the same people in real power and have been for generations stay in power. The politicians have no power at all and haven't for a long time. Powerless actors taking orders and reading their lines each day,
Edward's V's younger brother Richard whilst usually termed simply as 'Duke of York' had also been created 'Duke of Norfolk' by Edward IV - illegitimacy is no bar to the holding of any noble title, there are a great many examples of this. Richard III created Howard as Duke of Norfolk in June 1483, and since there was no Act of Attainder against Richard (Edward V's brother) then this creation could only be legal if the previous holder was dead. Logically therefore Richard, and indeed many of those around him, knew in June 1483 that Richard, Duke of York and of Norfolk was already dead.
Yes, that is another little piece of the puzzle, though Richard might have nevertheless tried to say (incorrectly) that the title was vacant due to illegitimacy anyway or that he was empowered to strip his nephew of it (which he was, but I'm not aware of him ever formerly removing it from his nephew). I agree with you that in fact it suggests little Richard of Shrewsbury was no more or that RIII knew his nephew would soon be dead.
That is certainly a very interesting point, as whether Richard of Shrewsbury was illegitimate or not was irrelevant to whether he could remain Duke of Norfolk, since as you say, he was not inheriting the title, but had been created the first holder of the title. (Just like Henry VIII's illegitimate son, the Duke of Richmond.) I think that this is actually the most persuasive piece of evidence that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the two princes that I have ever heard. If nothing else could have convinced Elizabeth Woodville that her sons were dead or going to be soon, hearing that John Howard had been created Duke of Norfolk would have done it. As soon as anyone heard that Howard was now the duke, they would have known the boys were doomed, if not already dead. It sends a chill down my spine to imagine hearing that . Thanks for posting that comment!
I agree that Richard has been unfairly maligned by Tudor apologists and history in general, but I also don't think Richard was fundamentally different from nobles of the day who were willing to be ruthless when it came to their positions of power and their survival. Who gets the throne, and who was in or out of favor, was bloody business back then for everyone, and being a nice guy just got you dead. Richard ordering the death of the princes makes the most sense to me as a self-preservation move to eliminate the possibility the Woodvilles could again wield actual power and have him eliminated on some trumped up charge after Edward V officially assumed the throne. Richard wasn't a Satanic villain with a lust for power, but he WAS trying to protect himself from his enemies once his brother was dead. He wasn't worse than the Tudors, but I don't think he was fundamentally better either simply based on when he lived, the position he was in, and how the game was played.
I think he had it done and they were suffocated. If i was born at that time i would secure my future and families future by any means. Im no murderess, but im no saint either.🤭
@@grassfedmilkmomma A little bit of the blame has to be put on Edward the 4th; if he had took better care of himself, he wouldn't have died at such A early age.
Edward IV made a disaster of his guardianship. Since Edward v was 2 he was governed by Anthony Woodville. I mean Anthony Woodville was probably more of a father figure to him than his own father. He adored one uncle, his guardian(Rivers) & hardly knew the other. Who was to be lord protector (Richard) Edward IV should’ve either named Woodville lord protector or had Richard govern him & raise him. Of course Richard felt threatened but so did the Woodville’s. It’s not fair only to view it from one person’s perspective. It was dog eat dog. Everyone involved n this debacle was looking after their own interests, positions of power & their life. As soon as Richard arrested & executed Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey & Thomas Vaughan (die hard Yorkists btw) he sealed the fate of both boys. He must’ve known young Edward would’ve punished him, very likely executed him for that act alone when he came into his majority. He knew he had to get rid of Edward & his brother if he executed Rivers & co & he decided to execute them anyway. At least the Woodville’s actually planned to crown him & rule through him to protect themselves from oh I don’t know, maybe someone getting their hands on the king & his younger brother, locking them away & usurping the crown.
I agree. Richard III wasn't an brooding, cruel, psychopath. He was a man of his time, IN A TIME when life was very unpredictable and volatile. Judgement from a modern perspective on the 1500s is a biased view. We all live in a type of luxury, in our modern lives compared to 500yrs ago.
@@HistoryCalling indeed monstrous, I thoroughly believe it was Margaret Beauford, behind it all. Thus the curse, which proved to be the evidence, time would tell.
This was fascinating. I have read many books on the Tudors, but I admit they were mostly around Henry VIII and Elizabeth I's time back in the 90s. That alone is fantastic material. I can't recall when or where I read it, but my mother, who also is a big reader both can remember something about Henry VII being the mastermind behind the murders for the reason that you pointed out. He doesn't seem to fit the bill. The murders helped him in his claims to the throne, plus no one ever thought of blaming him and he wasn't a nice man.
Yes, I definitely made it to the end of this video 😀 It was absolutely brilliant - Thank you! I haven't watched a documentary or other video on this subject that has been as thorough and honest. Sending all the best from Australia 👍
This gave me more and then any of the other things I’ve ever read about it. So thank you very much. It was clearly a tragedy and I felt so bad for your mother. They were just children innocent kids. I don’t believe in royalty- everyone is the same- so this is just double tragic that they were really truly killed for nothing but a power move.
This was a fun lecture!!! Loved it! Their mother needed to have been very powerful and assertive and have the necessary connections and clout to strike Richard III before he struck the boys. She didn’t have any of that. They were doomed. It’s so sad. Those poor scared boys.
The Woodville’s actually had quite a lot of power when Edward IV died. Unfortunately Richard just moved faster & took the young king, arresting then executing any Woodville’s surrounding Edward V. The Woodville’s were definitely planning to rule through the young king but at least he would’ve been crowned & himself & his wee brother would’ve survived.
I love 'The Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey. Brief synopsis: a recovering police officer looks into the case, as a police officer, looking for proof both pro and con for both sides. Ottimo!
I was just on Audible looking for a new book to listen to and as this is my favorite time period and one of the most fascinating and tragic mysteries I'm intrigued. Thanks for unknowingly recommending it❤
Yes! This novel puts forward some really convincing arguments, one of which is that it was far more in Henry VII’s interest to rid himself of the two princes after he defeats R III on the battlefield. I really recommend reading it if you are interested in this period of history. Tey also argues that R III was a good person and leader not resembling the picture Shakespeare paints in his play. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I was very excited to see that you were featuring this topic. I also love that you include pictures, drawings and other applicable/sample documents in your storytelling. I believe, unfortunately, that the boys were murdered, probably under orders from Richard. It's too bad the bones can't be tested. It would be heart-warming and proper to see the two little boys get the burial they deserve.
Hi Connie. I'm glad you like appreciate the images etc. as they typically take a long time to source. Yes, I think they were murdered too on R's orders and would love to see the bones tested, but (even assuming there's enough left to test), I don't think they ever will be.
Yeah, especially when you consider the fact that Richard III's bones got a proper burial, with people lining the street and Sophie, Countess of Wessex representing the Royal Family.
@@jn8ive60 I always think about that. Perhaps the Richard iii society should try n get funding or some kinda collective support to try to determine whether they are actually princes remains & not just to try n prove Edward IV was illegitimate but to put their poor souls to rest.
@@lyndsaycrawford It is down to the Queen and the current Royal Family what happens to the bones. So far they have refused any further tests. One has to wonder why?
I find it telling that the stories about what happened to the prices gets more elaborate as time goes on. This is more the way of legend than of history which makes these later stories unreliable to my mind. We then have the fact that later pretenders claimed to be Richard rather than Edward. This would suggest to me that at the time, the most strongly believed story was that Edward had died and Richard had somehow escaped. At this distance there is no way to know what might have happened without a forensic examination, but I believe we should not rule out natural causes. Richard might not have admitted to this for fear of being blamed and fuelling even more opposition.
I hate when people use Philippa Gregory's books as if they were some sort of source about actual events. The obvious being they are historical fiction and anyone with a knowledge of the actual events can easily point out things cut out, rearranged, or sometimes just invented whole cloth. Second, reading her books her bias against the Tudors and for Richard in the novels set in the War of the Roses practically reaches out of the pages and smacks you in the face. Richard killed his nephews to secure his grip on power and to eliminate any potential of him being overthrown and the rightful king being restored. Sometimes the simplest and most obvious answer is the best one.
Yup. I agree. I loved the Philippa novels, but they are stories "based" on available data. The author does not pretend to be a time-traveller, although it would seem that many of her readers think that she must have been. I think that Richard did it. Imprisoning both boys "proves" it to me.
@@leanie5234 Unfortunately, I think a lot of her readers believe every word; they don't seem to have any other knowledge of history to compare it to. And it's not helped by historical British television shows including her as one of the "experts."
Plus, it's so obvious that she hates Anne Boleyn/Elizabeth I. EVERY other novel, she's sympathetic or able to paint someone - even King Henry VIII - in a positive light. I've yet to read a novel that's from Elizabeth's "real" perspective. Even stories about her are told through other people's eyes, I don't think she's ever written a first person one for her. One that gets into what she went through. One that doesn't outright seem to damn Anne Boleyn. Like, she definitely lets her opinions and ideas get in the way of things that could be told beautifully. Like, you can hate Anne or Elizabeth or Catherine (any of them) or Richard or Edward or Henry, but shouldn't all the people, not just the ones you like, get a proper story told? To be seen as something more than a cardboard cut out? Sorry, bigger rant than expected. I just watched Taylor Swift's All Too Well Short Film (twice) and I have a lot of emotions!
I've just been reading all your comments. I agree that it is annoying when one is trying to communicate real history (or at least an account of events which is as grounded as possible in actual evidence) to constantly have that undermined by works of historical fiction that are treated as fact by so many people. I can't fault Phillipa Gregory for writing historical fiction. I'm sure if any of us could do it as successfully as she has, we would, but I agree that it's annoying to see her inventions treated as correct and she herself as an expert. I'd need to check, but I think her PhD is in English (which makes total sense for a fiction writer) and so to my mind she simply isn't a professional historian. I wouldn't mind if only she would admit more often that what she's written is made up instead of presenting it as a serious, well researched, plausible theory, supported by evidence. It's interesting that amateur historians can be taken so seriously, when (for example) an amateur lawyer, doctor, or accountant never would be. They're very different skill sets of course, but it actually takes longer to do a PhD than a medical degree, so I'm afraid it makes me a bit grumpy when it seems like many people think they can just decide to be an historian without the relevant training. After all, it took me about 7 and a half years at university to learn how to do this properly! Apologies - rant over :-)
Thank you! I actually went to the Tower some years back and heard the story there, but it was a guided tour with nothing close to the level of detail you put into it. I really appreciate your examination of evidence in such depth.
OMG, I want to go to the Tower so badly, I want to take AT LEAST 1 YEAR to Just rent an RV and just drive all around Great Britain and visit all the Historic Castles from the 1066 Norman Conquest up to the End of the Tudors. I Also Love Mary Queen of Scott’s story. But forgive me for this, I lose all interest after the Death of Elizabeth 1 . I have read the History of James the 1st and every King and/or Queen since . They just can’t hold my Interest.
Such a sad story of two little boys!!! I think if they saw the September they would have been lucky. However they died hopefully it was swift! Thanks for a in-depth and interesting investigation! X
I think the swift execution of Hastings who had been Edward IV's closest leige man all his life is one of the most important pointers to Richard's involvement.
My thanks for an exquisitely concise synopsis of this mystery. What struck me most was HMS the Queen's reluctance to permit DNA analysis of the bones when she had no objection to such a test being performed on their uncle, i.e.: Richard III. Odd, no?
Thanks Karen :-) To answer your query, Elizabeth II has control over the 'Princes' bones because of where they are housed, rather than because of her distant familial relationship to them (same with Anne Boleyn). Richard's bones were found in an area outside her control and so she had no say in what was done with them.
Also consider that when Richard was found, he was found in a parking lot. He was needing to be buried properly. The two sets of remains which may or may not be these princes (or prince & king as I see the two who died) are buried. To exhume them from graves is very different from examining remains which are already being handled and not yet laid to rest.
@@perniciouspete4986 True, but being within a consecrated building, would they come under Home Office authority? English burial law can get a bit complicated - exhumations from a cemetery or official burial place are very much the HO's domain.
I absolutely LOVE this channel, and I sincerely appreciate all the work you put in. My mam gave me my love of history, and she would have loved this channel, too. I cannot give you a higher compliment than that!! Xxx
I read that in the 20th century there were two skeletons found in a space behind a wall, when remodeling was being done in the tower. I read it decades ago (pre-computer). There is an article about a woman and child buried under the tower's chapel with the line, "first full skeletons to be discovered since the 1970s". Yet I can't find any reference to the full skeleton(s) discovered in the tower during the 1970s anywhere online. I had presumed the skeletal remains behind a wall were those of the two Princes.
I think they were murdered but how directly uncle Richard was involved I don't know. It is appalling how much death there was every time a throne changed hands for hundreds if not thousands of years. Thank you for doing this video. I love how careful you are to lay out who said what and when and letting your audience speculate for themselves.
@Suuusan28 His power grab was what basically sealed Henry Vii's claim near the end of the Wars of The Roses. His most infamous crime was the Princes, although no proof was ever fully uncovered
I am in the midst of reading Philippa Gregory's Plantagenet novels in order. I'm reading "The White Princess" now. I'm enjoying them and I understand that it's historical fiction, not history, so I'm fine with an author filling in the blanks with what can only be speculation in real life. But the one place I wish Gregory hadn't gone is a sexual relationship between Elizabeth of York and her UNCLE, Richard III. EEEEWWWWW.
I'm reading the White Queen, haven't gotten up to the White Princess yet. I'm really enjoying the series, and I love reading around the subject to find the truth of what she puts in as fact. I don't mind some embellishment of the truth, or taking some of the rumors of the time and running with them (such as Prince Edward of Lancaster being the son of Somerset, not Henry VI) but sometimes she goes a little too far.
Richard III was called by his enemies Crookback. He was first-rate general, brave, and absolutely loyal to his brother, Edward IV, who liked and trusted him. Could such a man have murdered his own nephews ?But it is certain that he had grown up in the violent years of the Wars of the Roses and he knew well that the way to win power was to strike suddenly without scruple and pity. Thanks so much for your video, which I always enjoyed very much.
Exactly! That’s what puzzles me… If they were murdered, he seems like the most likely suspect, but it doesn’t tally nicely with his reported personality and many other actions… I’m definitely not a fanatic Ricardian, preferring to distance myself from any blind support for historical characters, however, his long lasting loyalty to his brother Edward, even during the rebellions of Warwick and their other brother George, Duke of Clarence. There is the theory that Edward V died from natural causes and Gloucester tried to cover it up because of how shameful it would be if discovered, and I can actually believe that, based on other evidence, but then there’s holes in the theory, such as “what happened to Richard of Shrewsbury?”…
@@lfgifu296 I can think of a few motives, including a sort of 'self-defence' if he was worried about the Woodvilles moving against him while they had control of the boy-king. Richard would have learned a lot from the Wars of the Roses, including the dangers of having rivals claimants to throne around and the problems of having a king who was unable to govern in his own right. I'm not saying I'd have murdered my nephews if I'd been in Richard's position... but I also can't say I'd completely rule it out either.
I think that it's important to remember he had witnessed what happened to a kingdom with a child king (Henry VI), and the political instability that resulted. No excuse for murder, but it's hard to say what actually happened. I think it's important to remember that all these people were products of their time and circumstance. The more you research this, the more questions are raised and I honestly believe that it is wrong to take sides in something with iffy evidence from 500 years+ ago.
I have read everything, fiction & non on this subject as well as all of Morgan Llewellyn's books on English & Welsh history. I like British history so much that I have read all I can get my hands on many times over. Thank you so much for your retelling of this part of the history that speaks so deeply to all who know of it.
You're so welcome :-) I'm delighted you enjoyed it. There's always a risk with a story as famous as this that people won't like it because it's impossible to really add anything new to the information out there, so I'm happy that you still enjoyed it, even with your prior extensive reading on the topic.
I really enjoyed your video! Informative, well made, great! I loved Philippa Gregory’s novels, and I’m totally aware it’s fiction of some historic events. A reimagining with some magical aspects even. It doesn’t distract me from the facts or real history. But they did grow so famous that for some people the lines get blurred. ( I believe it also happened a lot with Shakespeare’s characters as well. The way he interpreted is many times seen as the real deal, when some historians say it wasn’t quite like that)
Yes, historical fiction is great for introducing people to the topic and getting them interested, but as you say, some people do take it as fact and it can be difficult to dissuade them from believing fictional stories after that, even when you put the contemporary evidence in front of them. Tis an uphill battle, that's for sure!
Personally, I very much enjoy longer videos providing they're well researched and presented - and you get a gold star on both counts! It must have been very time-consuming for you, so thank you very much indeed for such a well-balanced examination of a fascinating subject.
Thank you so much. I'm glad you enjoyed it. It is indeed quite a marathon to do one this length. I definitely prefer something in the region of 15-20 minutes! :-)
I remember hearing one of my teachers telling me about the princes in the tower when I was in 5th grade. Their story was truly tragic since they didn't ask to be born into royalty and were treated as pawns with no control over their lives. Though it was rumored that their uncle had them murdered, it was never really proven.
Well done! Being a historian myself I can appreciate the good research and presentation skills you put into this work. Your accent is just fine. In fact, I was not sure at all where you were from until I thought I heard "guards of the tar". Then later I realized you said "tower". 🙂. No matter, brilliant work.
Just wanted to say that I stumbled upon your TH-cam vids a few weeks Ago after I split up with my ex and I wasn’t sleeping for days on end but I found your channel and your amazing knowledge took me away from it all and I listen to the vids all the time now. I love The tudors and English history so much and I’ve learnt so much from your videos! Probs to much info haha but just wanted to show my appreciation and thanks for helping me get through such a difficult time ☺️ I look forward to your vids every Friday now xx
The fact that there was no official burial of two princes just proves that they were murdered by someone who had everything to gain from having them deleted from history to further his own claim to the throne. This could only have been their uncle. Other monarchs would have honored them with a real burial after they ascended the throne. This was clandestine murder on the order of their uncle Richard, no doubt about it.
The real mystery for me is why on Earth did Richard apparently just think nobody was ever going ask where the boys were? Why not produce the bodies and come up with a lie about what happened to them? Richard otherwise seems to have been intelligent and capable, but for some reason he's just... hoping everyone somehow forgets about the boys in the Tower? That's the bit I don't understand! Especially since he may well have been involved in the murder of Henry VI so he'd have experience of doing a bit of regicide in the Tower and then passing it off as natural causes.
@@punkykenickie2408 I think you and Marianne A have actually made two good points in favor of Richard not being the murderer. I agree, Richard was bright enough to know that to fulfill his desire of ridding himself of potential heirs, he had to proclaim their deaths and produce the bodies, more or less looking as if the children had died peacefully. Even if everyone really thought Richard had murdered them, they were mostly intimidated from more than whispering it secretly. And the important fact would have been that everyone was sure they were really dead, discouraging pretenders. And regarding Marianne A's points: The fact that there was no official burial during Richard's life might mean that the Princes were still alive. And it is also odd, that once Henry VII had taken over, he never produced the bodies either, which one might have thought would be the obvious thing to do, especially since there was a subsequent parade of pretenders in his reign. It may, of cours,e be true the bodies were no longer to be found when Henry came to the throne, so he couldn't do that. However the point remains that substantial questions remain about Richard's guilt.
@@edithengel2284 I don't think they could have died by any cause without Richard knowing about it and *something* must have happened to them and if it was illness or an accident then why not say so? It's possible they died in a way that in some way *looked* supiscious and Richard panicked a bit about people assuming he'd killed them and putting off telling anyone and then eventually he's left with no bodies (they went mouldy long ago D: ) and no way to prove his version of events. He never seemed like the type to panic but that's probably my best guess for what happened if Richard didn't actually kill them.
@@punkykenickie2408 Yes, I agree. If they had died, it would make sense for him to say so. So why didn't he? Maybe because they weren't dead. (Although, to be just, equally they could have been killed by some method that left too obvious a sign that they'd been murdered.). In any event, I am not sure who I think killed them, or even if they were murdered.
A superlative work! The length was fine. I most enjoyed this one. I have long been intrigued by the "Princes in the Tower" tale. You handled it with perfect excellence. None of this hysterical silliness that other documentaries have sunk to. Especially if they have a Pro-Richard III bias. Well done tonight.
Richard III had the strongest motive, the most to benefit, and had the means to see it through. I hate the thought of children being murdered, but all signs point to that being the case.
Thank you. Yes, it is a great mystery. I do wonder if we'll ever get any answers to it (probably not if the Westminster urn bones are never properly examined for DNA).
It would be amazing if we one day, in this lifetime did. I wish they'd just examine them, it's the murder of two innocent children, two innocent royal children I might add. 🤞
@@HistoryCalling When Henry VI died of sorrow, his body was displayed. It is likely Henry VI was killed on Edward IV's orders but everyone went along with the story that he suddenly died of natural causes. In other words, the English did not have trouble with expediency. Richard could have arranged an "accident" or "fatal illness" for his nephews and displayed their bodies. It would have saved him a lot of trouble. Obviously, he did not take this route. Personally, I believe that Richard sent the boys to his home in the North to be raised with the Duke of Clarence's children and Richard's own illegitimate children. The boys also may have been sent to Burgundy because the Yorks often sought refuge in that country.
What a wonderful telling of the princes. Such a complicated topic explained concisely and entertaining. Great job. Personally, I would think that Richard would not have buried them in any way to be preserved. I think he would have used lime to dissolve the bones just to make any evidence of them dissappear. It would be interesting to sample the bones found, to find out if they are, infact, the brothers.
Masterful presentation! You get the gold star! Truly one of the most complete accounts of this mystery which still haunts us today. Why oh why can’t permission be given to try to solve it!!!! Thank you and have a lovely New Year!
@Kim Alison it isn't not knowing what happened to them that bugs me, as it's not like we ever will know. It's not knowing if we have the right people that piques my interest. Because if it came to be that they weren't the Princes, that would be curious indeed. I suppose I have a bit of a different opinion on disturbing the dead as I am not Christian so I do not hold the same views on death, but I can respect that it's her decision to make, and she followed her morals making it.
@Kitten in the Moon given where the bones were located it would seem quite likely they were murdered as if the dna showed that they were indeed the princes (king/prince) AND both are together that is strong evidence that they were placed together, carelessly (not in their own chambers), in death.
First of all-it’s all fascinating information. You apologize for it being overly long, but I think most of us listening aren’t bored in the least. I could listen with my full attention on your lecture for much longer than the length of this particular video, which was well researched and very informative and thoroughly interesting throughout! I agree with your analysis and also think that Richard lll had the 2 Princes murdered. He was in charge of them when they went missing, and he certainly had the most to gain . He must have decided to do it as soon as he sent for the younger brother to join his older brother before his coronation. He wanted to get them together and ensure that he wiped out all of the competition in one foul blow. It seems glaringly obvious to me that this was his deliberate intention all along. There was nobody who had such a strong motivation to eliminate those poor children and he made sure that they were separated from their mother and anyone who would look out for their best interests. I do find it to be strange that they left them to rot in the tower though after they murdered the children. There would have undoubtedly been a terrible smell from their decaying corpses, and even if it eventually subsided, it would have been apparent for quite a while. Did nobody ever discuss the strange odor or any other atypical things that occurred in the maintenance of the Tower? Were there “janitors” and did no cleaning persons ever notice a foul odor, especially after the kids disappeared? I also wonder why the man who eventually confessed said that they had been moved if they hadn’t been. Maybe he had been told the wrong information, but it would seem odd to make such a serious confession and then deliberately lie about the location of the bodies. I also wonder why the Queen didn’t want to have the remains examined to identify the bones that were found? Perhaps she thought that if her father and grandfather didn’t think it was important, that she would leave well enough alone too However, with the many amazing advances that have been made since the 1930s it would finally be possible to prove whether or not they are the bones of the lost princes. It seems like they are the bones and it would be nice to clear up the situation definitively once and for all! Perhaps King Charles will be more permissive about it. It was an unimaginable nightmare for the children to have perished in such a heartlessly cruel manner at the hands of their evil uncle. It would be a small consolation to have their identities establishe for posterity so that we could at least know that they are indeed the murdered children (I think they are). It would be satisfying to solve the mystery of where they ended up for history’s sake and in the sanctity of their memories. Thank you very much for such an informative video!
I'm inclined towards the Richard theory. He had motive and opportunity, unlike the rest of the suspects, and his contemporaries clearly blamed him (though this is hardly evidence on its own). Illness that took out both boys is a possibility, though that requires us to believe that Richard thought it better to stay silent rather than make their deaths public. Either way, he was going to be accused of killing them. Regardless, he definitely isolated the boys by having their other close relatives killed and restricting access to them. I do agree with the point that killing two boys was not as shocking then as it is to us. It's easy to forget that the Black Death was less than 40 years previously, plus the War of the Roses that had taken up the past few decades. Death was familiar to the people of the 15th century in a way that it isn't in the 21st century. And while the Tudors get a reputation for being bloody, the Plantagenets had a LONG history of being ruthless to get what they wanted. It was a bloody time all around.
Thank you for your very detailed video on such a mystery. I found it informative, I like hearing what historians say about this mystery. I’m a history lover-this and the Tudor era are my favourites. I found out things from you that I never knew about this mystery. I, too hope they can do the tests to identify the remains of the boys, let’s hope they can get permission to get it done, I have read somewhere that the current monarch-King Charles III will allow it, I’ll believe it when I read it’s done. Again, thank you so much for your informative videos (I’ve seen a few of them), keep up the great work as I and of what I’ve read in some of the comments (too many to read) so do a lot of people.
Makes you wonder why Her Majesty wouldn't want this investigation to go on. It won't change anything in the current line of ruling and will put to rest (no pun intended) who those boys are and give them a proper identification.
Great content! And a HUGE thank you for the links and recommendations to further literature and media in the description! Great follow up suggestions and the comments about accuracy are very helpful an much appreciated.
Late catching up with Friday’s Calling. I have always felt unsettled about the young princes. It is true that the heir to the throne was raised from birth to fulfill that role. He was schooled in every way to rule. From etiquette to books to warfare, it was their life. Dangers of court life were not well kept secrets and even a child would pick up rumors, etc. They were surrounded by people who guarded them, checked their food, told them who they could and could not associate with, watched every move they made. The heir was a valuable commodity, but still, I would hope, a child. It is reported that the princes were seen “playing” near the tower. They knew their mother and siblings were in sanctuary. Were they afraid? Did they hope to see them again? Did they know their uncle had been executed? Did they even know the uncle who was plotting their deaths? Sorry to ramble, it is just so profoundly sad and ruthless. Thank you so much, your research brings them to life.
Not at all. What are comments sections for, if not a little ramble to get your thoughts in order and see what other people think :-) I've wondered myself how much they knew about what was happening. When it got to the point they weren't allowed out and the coronation hadn't happened, the elder boy at least must have suspected something was seriously wrong and this chimes with his doctor's comments that Edward V was in daily fear of death. I don't think they knew Richard III much. Edward V spent a little time with him as they travelled to London, but he hadn't grown up around him. I don't even think the boys really knew each other.
Not that I subscribe to it, but I had always heard the "Buckingham Hypothesis" as being a plot in support of Henry Tudor and not as part of any claim he may have had himself. I still find it unlikely for the reasons you have given, but it is a seductive theory for anyone trying to exonerate Richard. In any event, one only has to look at the career of Brackenbury, the Constable of the Tower, who received many honours after 1483, acquiring an income greater than many barons. If the princes had been killed or gone missing on his watch without Richard's knowledge, he would hardly be rewarded for it. That is the most compelling evidence of all, in my opinion.
I saved you for my day off . I can listen to this darling all day and her great videos .. great research on history again. Thank you . Greetings from California 🌸😊
THANK YOU! Every time I hear the debate about who had KING Edward V and Prince Richard murdered it irritates me. They were being held in the most secure prison in the world at the time by their uncle who usurped the regency from Edward. Considering the threat they posed to Richard he would have had them securely locked down with ZERO chance of any one else getting to them. It’s a case of means, motive and opportunity and ONLY Richard had all three. This is a case of historians and novelists putting forth rumors as possible realities to make the subject more titillating and/or interesting. The problem is most people see fictional movies from fictitious books based on actual historical figures and believe that this is an historically accurate portrayal of events; Phillippa Gregory’s novels particularly. The storyline that I found even more absurd and revolting is that the teenage Elizabeth of York was madly in love with the adult uncle who killed her brothers and she traveled to the field of battle to give herself to him the night before the Battle of Bosworth. CREEPY! The only scenario from one of Gregory’s books I find more absurd is Mary Boleyn giving Henry VIII a piece of her mind in a bid to save her sister’s life. Neither Mary or Henry were even there when Anne Boleyn was executed and if they were and Mary was able to get an audience with Henry she would have been next in line for execution. The soap opera version of historical events can be entertaining, but like daytime dramas there’s very little about them that resemble real people’s lives. We don’t have evil twins who will show up at the perfect time to vex us just as we finally find happiness and our children don’t age in dog years! There is one thing I do believe is that Catherine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor consummated their marriage. Arthur died young after becoming sick with one of many plagues that killed young healthy people in Medieval Europe he wasn’t sickly his entire life, he was raised to do his duty as the Prince of Wales, which was principally to be fruitful and multiply, and he was a teenager. It was convenient for Henry VII to keep Catherine around so he could keep her dowery, so he went along with her implausible version of events. The teenage Henry VIII was enamored with and believed what he WANTED to believe like we humans often do, until we don’t. Ms. Gregory doesn’t try to pass her books off as historically accurate unlike the numerous wildly inaccurate so called “historical videos” on TH-cam and frequently the inaccuracies can be looked up in ten seconds on Wikipedia. As a fan of history this pisses me off because it’s so easy to get the accurate information, and these people ARE passing their work off as historical facts.
Kathleen, I couldn't have put it better myself. :-) We are of one mind on the problems of historical fiction and the lunacy of some of Gregory's plot lines.
All Tudors being what / who they were (utterly ruthless), the possibility exists the boys still lived after the Battle of Bosworth. And that it was newly crowned Henry VII Tudor who had the boys executed in the Tower. After all, he couldn't exactly let them live, could he? His own claim to the throne was far inferior to theirs...
The boys were last seen well before Tudor invaded. In fact it was Richard not been able to produce the boys & their “disappearance” believed to be down to him having them killed, that made Yorkist (loyal to Edward IV) & Lancastrian ally against him & back Henry Tudor. I think you’re referring to Edward IV & not William the bastard who was actually William the conqueror & he was illegitimate. I don’t believe Edward IV was illegitimate. There’s really nothing to back it up except words of a would be usurper. Richard of York & cecily Neville lost a son before Edward, so they probably baptised him quickly cos they believed back then babies didn’t get into heaven unless they were baptised. George’s baptism was more grand than Edwards. It was also more grand than Edmunds or Elizabeth’s baptism (their 2nd & 3rd child) Edmund died in his teenage yrs. its an absolute desperate stretch regarding Edward iv’s legitimacy. George of Clarence was dead if Edward IV was illegitimate it made….. huh guess who… the most senior male royal. Step in Richard to usurp the crown. Tudor killing the boys is ridiculous. They were under the complete control & responsibility of their uncle Richard. It’s far more likely, sir Brackenbury, the constable of the tower allowed Richards henchman in (whoever they were) then boom, there goes Richards biggest rivals.
you have good theory , but the two princes disappeared before Richard III coronation. and Richard did not honored his brothers last wishes and will at all by stealing the crown to himself.
However, Henrys claim to the throne through his mother was convenient, but ultimately irrelevant, as thats not the grounds for his claim to the throne. He took the throne by conquest, making his bloodline irrelevant. Likewise he didnt have to marry Elizabeth to strengthen his claim to the throne, but it was a politically expedient way to finally end the War of the Roses by uniting the 2 bloodlines. If Henry was the culprit, it would be to tie up loose ends, to avoid having other claimants to the throne (especially children who could be used as pawns by others), just as Elizabeth's children, had she married elsewhere, could be become a problem. But it would not have to do with them having a stronger claim to the throne. He took the throne by conquest, thats as strong a claim as any king could have, especially back then. Indeed, thats how Edward IV, the boys' father, ended up on the throne. But there can be made arguments for and against Henry as the culprit, just as there can be made arguments for and against Richard as the culprit. Honestly, it feels as if 99.9% of ppl out there just assume, that the boys were murdered, and then go looking for a murderer. They may just as easily have died to disease, as many did at that time, including royals and nobles, and indeed, around the time they disappeared, the "sweating sickness" was running through London. I have always felt, that when u have no evidence to the contrary, the most likely explanation is probably it. Which would be disease, as there is zero factual evidence against Henry or Richard or even for the boys having been murdered at all, only speculation and claims and rumors made by ppl with an interest in discrediting the ppl, they accuse, often made decades or even centuries later. Including Shakespeare. I tend to believe, that the boys died in the "sweating sickness" epidemic that summer, and that it was problematic for Richard to admit it and better in his optics to just let them disappear. And as their mother reconciled with Richard and join him at court with her daughters, apparently on a friendly footing, that could mean, that she knew the fate of her sons and didnt blame Richard for it. But again, thats only speculation, as there is no factual evidence 1 way or another, but imo the most probably and logical explanation.
Exploring this channel is like crawling around under a Christmas tree discovering these presents are all for MEEEEE🤩🤗🥳.... and everyone else of course.. but they are also for MEEEEE🤩😍🥳😁 Thank you for the obviously time consuming & EXCELLENT work you do, leading us through the often interconnected (and at times confusing🤔) historical lives & deaths, actions & reactions, bright adventures as well as shady events and the consequences there of. Greetings from Denmark🇩🇰
I believe you are most likely correct. Back story: Richard despised the Woodvilles and wanted to get rid of anyone with Woodville blood. Allowing Edward V to reign would have meant yet more hangers-on, and Edward was still underage. So Richard has both boys put into the Tower and discretely has them killed by the jailer while he's on progress. As for the bones, barring any other reports of children of the same age dying in that Tower, and the fact that the description of their burial matches where they were found, seems to indicate that those are the boys.
Next year, for Halloween, could you do like a "Horrible Histories" type of thing? Where you talk about really horrible things in history? That would be so cool. Or could you do a series on the Romanovs (just in general, not for Halloween)? I feel selfish asking, but I would LOVE it and I LOVE your videos and I figure it can't hurt to ask any. Someone asked for this video, and it's the second best thing that happened to me today (the first was All Too Well, the Short Film, so I think that's super high praise! Or, at least, that's how I mean it!) I love your videos. Please keep up the amazing work
Thanks Carla. Yes, the icky things in history is a good idea for Halloween next year. On the Romanovs, I already have a video on what happened to the family in 1917/18 if you're interested and Catherine the Great is on my to-do list :-)
@@HistoryCalling Oh my gosh yes! I will go find it!! I'm a recently-ish new subscriber and I've been loving ALL of your videos and I've been trying to watch as many as I can in my spare time. I loved the Wives of Henry VIII series! I feel so often Anne Boleyn is vilified unfairly, and I loved that you were open and honest about that. I can't wait to see your Catherine the Great video and I'll look for those Romanov videos now! Thank you :)
This is a mystery I tried to sort out years ago but came to the same conclusion. One ( well at least I } would think there were so many people in the household, SOME insider would spill the beans.. but history seems to have missed that opportunity . It was a little long but how could you have made it shorter and still due justice to the subject.? I suspect the remains are of the boys, but DNA can be surprising. Thanks. I liked this episode.
Yes, it does make you wonder if the stories about Tyrell doing it (or assisting) were true and there was greater evidence of his involvement at the time, which has now been lost to history.
BEST VIDEO TO DATE! I can see how the task of researching this mystery could be such a drain; I'm glad you stuck with it. Tons of detail with a cast of characters I had trouble keeping track of. I was unaware of Thomas More's account and Tyrell was unknown to me. I would love to see the bones subjected to scientific analysis; it may happen someday, but won't hold my breath. Richard was not the deformed embodiment of evil depicted by Shakespeare, of course, but he does seem to have been ruthless enough to be the agent of death to these boys. Thank you again! Be well and stay safe.
Thank you. I was unaware of Tyrell as well, but it made it all the more interesting to research. I'm not holding my breath about the bones either. I have to wonder how much of them is even left.
Thomas More was of that wretched bishop's house & everything he wrote was heresay.Pity Richard had too much respect for men of the cloth.Morton was as vile as the Stanleys.I think Tyrell was a scapegoat.
@@susanmccormick6022 he also lost his head cos he wouldn’t appease Henry viii and recognise him as the head of the Church of England. He’s known as a man of conviction. Idk what it matters as Ricardians shun 1st hand accounts, without exception anyway. “Tudor propaganda” is an ironic term considering Richard iii has a whole society white washing history. So basically Tudor propaganda is any inconvenient research which shows Richard iii in a poor light. What about Mancini or the 2nd continuation of the croyland chronicles. They were wrote pre Tudor so how do Ricardians explain what they say?
Wow, you did a great job. I made it to the end. The story of the two boys has always intrigued me. Such a sad faith. Appreciating your hard work; thank you 😊
If several child skeletons have been found in the tower, it would be of interest to know when they were discovered and where, as well as what was the most likely explanation for each find. There are various mysteries in past history what fascinate us, and this is certainly one of them.
It's SO frustrating, as these events occured in the ever growing past....death takes more and more of the details into her embrace and are forgotten to time. Who were all these children and what were all of their stories. We will never know.
Well done on cramming all that into just 45mins! This subject has always fascinated me. As you say, the most likely killer is Richard but I've always had my doubts because he was such a competent ruler in the North and very well loved by the people there. It seems so out of character for him to have suddenly turned into a monster. I read something a while ago which suggested that Edward V was very sickly and was often visited by the doctor whilst in the Tower (Dr Argentine?) and that he may have actually died of natural causes...which would have been so embarrassing for Gloucester that he had to revert to Plan B and cover things up. We'll never know. Thanks for an interesting video!
Yes, I read that theory too and it's certainly possible, but of course then we still have to ask 'what happened to Richard of Shrewsbury'. Glad you liked the video :-)
@@HistoryCalling Ah, that'll be your next project......Perkin Warbeck! He even managed to fool his aunt Margaret, Duchess of Bergundy, who backed him. Very odd!
I have some difficulty believing that Richard III did this as well. He had a good reputation and long history of being loyal to his older brother in very trying circumstances, and he seems to have been well-regarded and a good and competent administrator for so much of his life. I also think that Richard III was in a very tight spot. Very tight indeed. He was caught between two very powerful factions. The first, very exclusive, faction was that of Elizabeth Woodville and her family, who during the reign of Edward IV gained incredible amounts of power, influence, and land. They were very ambitious and very good at seizing opportunity, and there were many of them. They'd taken an incredible amount of titles and lands and many of the best and most eligible marriages for themselves and their kin. They were a close-knit clan, probably at least in large part due to closing ranks in the face of negative reaction to Elizabeth's marriage with Edwards, and it didn't look like anyone outside of it was going to get a shot at anything if someone didn't take them down a peg or two. If you didn't or couldn't join them, what then? The second faction was that of the Woodvilles' opponents. They hadn't liked Elizabeth, who was born into the minor nobility and must have seemed nothing more than an opportunistic social climber, from the first. Her family's rise to power incurred a lot of fear and resentment. Others had little hope of favor, influence, fortune, and getting what they wanted while the Woodvilles ruled England as Edward IV very blatantly let them do. And outsiders to this clan had little hope of being able to join the ruling clique. Further, there was a natural rivalry between the Woodvilles and other powerful landholders. That's precisely why Warwick the Kingmaker, one of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in the realm, turned coat and launched a rebellion against Edward IV. It was clear, from the fact that Edward had made a mockery of Warwick's efforts to secure a prestigious marriage for him in France and entered into at least one secret treaty behind Warwick's back, that Warwick's star was falling and his influence with Edward would not likely be enough to preserve what he had and protect his interests, much less be a player in decision-making. Elizabeth and the Woodvilles had little reason to love Richard or his wife, Anne, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker. Anne's father and his faction had actually rebelled against Edward IV out of rivalry with the Woodvilles, and Richard (by marrying Anne and so becoming the heir of all Warwick's property and interests) had become a kind of heir of that rivalry and bone of contention between the old nobility and the Woodvilles. What I'm surprised the video didn't address was the distinct possibility that Edward IV was illegitimate and no son of Richard of York to begin with. There is certainly evidence to suggest that Edward was conceived when his mother was some distance away from the senior Richard. Perhaps Richard III never took that--or the allegations that Edward had been married prior to marrying Elizabeth Woodville--seriously in his earlier life. But when Richard found out that Edward had died and Elizabeth hadn't notified him, he knew two things. First, she was going to challenge him to take charge of everything and she fully intended to freeze him out. And she couldn't safely freeze him out without destroying him as an actual or even just potential rival. (The same problem Warwick faced.) All the Woodvilles would fall in line behind her, and they were formidable. Second, Edward had appointed him Protector during the boys' minority, and if Richard were going to enforce Edward's wishes (and long tradition), he would have to move fast. But--and here's the crux of the problem--the boys were not too far from their majority, and they had been raised by their mother and by the Woodvilles. They would take the side of their mother and uncles, and they were very probably poisoned against him. He couldn't hope to counteract their influence on the young princes. Thus, Richard had a tiger by the tail. If he didn't meekly bow to Elizabeth and the Woodvilles and challenged her to serve as Protector of the Realm--and maybe even if he just minded his own business--he'd sooner or later come into conflict with the young princes as they grew up. They'd become more and more able to assert themselves, and he and his son would be seen as liabilities to them. And after decades of conflict and treachery in different branches of the family and even in the same branches of the family, he was all too aware of what happened to people who were considered liabilities to those in power in those times. So I see it as plausible that Richard (once he made that fateful decision to try to intercept the young Edward on his way to London) would latch onto any reason to discount the claim of his brother and nephews to the throne. Richard could be very sure that he was the son of Richard of York and that there was no question of his legitimacy or the legitimacy of his son. Surely the throne should go to legitimate claimants and not to illegitimate claimants. So he would only be doing the appropriate thing to take the throne himself. It wasn't much of a step, considering the circumstances, between asserting his right to serve as Protector and realizing that the boys were too much of a liability for him and to then take the step of justifying their murder--whether he ordered it himself or opened the way for someone else.
I agree with you. The doubt in my mind is that I feel Richard gained nothing, as the boys had been declared illegitimate. Therefore, he was at that time safely enconsed on the throne. I do not see him as the murderer of his nephews, although the evidence such as it is, points directly to him.
Your voice is beautiful and your videos are so informative, I adore how you give your own opinion at the end and the facts. Please don't stop this! When I'm on a 14hr night shift as a Psych nurse, I listen to your videos on low and your voice rocks me to sleep! (In a good way) thank you. X
We may never know what happened to them, but perhaps we may come to know when it happened; If the records of the tower are extant, the consumption records should give an indication of when they ceased to be fed and clothed there, thereby providing a possible date for their demise or removal from the tower...
That's a fascinating idea. I don't think such records exist sadly, as I'm sure someone would have used them by now to try to establish a more secure timeline. You never know though. Sometimes things like this show up in archives, having been lost for centuries.
@@HistoryCalling I seem to recall some mention of them in a documentary about the Tower, regarding some prisoners in Tudor times. Perhaps someone should take the trouble to investigate...
wonnnderful presentation! but verging on ASMR 😴 your voice & accent are so lovely. such a sad story. Ive never heard the account that the young king sensed his death was near 😥
Tragic for the Yorkists as you would think with the 3 sons of York their house would endure. As it turned out they destroyed their own line and allowed Henry Tudor, who was from an illegitimate line, to succeed to the throne in the person of Henry Tudor King Henry Vii
Exactly. Though he couldn't have known it at the time, all Henry had to do was sit back and wait for the Yorks to almost completely wipe themselves out, then mop up what was left. If you've ever watched Game of Thrones, I think the comparisons between Henry and Daenerys are very clear on that point.
I always thought it was Richard - the other option is Henry VII but it would mean Richard had some scruple about murdering friends and family - Clarence Hastings Buckingham and a few others I think did not get very fair trials from Richard - his nephews were such an obvious threat he would have to eliminate them
Yes, I think they were a definite threat too. You see some people saying 'Oh he'd had them declared illegitimate, so they were no threat to him and he had no motive to kill them', but I think that's a very naïve way to look at the situation. They would absolutely have been figureheads for those wanting to overthrow him and he had the greatest motive of all to do them harm.
@@HistoryCalling -they were a problem for Henry Tudor even - it was Perkin Warbeck I think who was trained to pretend he was the young duke of York and wound up in Henry VII's kitchen eventually - two young male heirs while Richard is basically usurping - no chance in the world Richard would let them live - Shakespeare's details of his treachery may be a little exaggerated but he had a hunch back when found to the Bard's credit - Shakespeare's take on him is pretty accurate
@@FandersonUfo Actually, Lambert Simnel was the pretender who wound up in Henry VII's kitchen. Perkin Warbeck, another pretender, was thrown into the Tower and eventually executed.
And considering Henry VII's mother and Elizabeth Woodville formed an alliance, it seems very strange that Henry VII or his mother would murder their ally's children. Especially since both sides agreed to a political marriage to cement their alliance.
This is SUCH an example of how a terrible thing can also be something we are glad happened. I've known this story for many years and have always thought, "How I wish someone had protected them." And then two years ago, we finally got confirmation on parts of the family tree that prove descent from Henry VII & Elizabeth of York. That marriage would undoubtedly not have happened if Edward V had lived. That means I would not exist. Things like this happen throughout history and many untold millions past, present, and future owe their very existence to these evil acts. Mind-bending for sure!
It seems very odd to me that Elizabeth, mother of the princes, didn't sense the danger after Gloucester taking possesion of the Edward postponing his crowning. Instead of following the Gloucesters advise and going to the "sanctuary", she was supposed to take his youngest son and look for asylum elsewhere promptly. If they were safe out of the country, that could have potentially spared Edward's life as well and possibly force Richard to have him crowned, as having him killed wouldn't have mattered if there was Richard the duke of York still available, next in the line.
This was wonderful. I just discovered your channel and look forward to listening to more. Since you mention Philippa Gregory's fictional accounts of the murder of the princes, would you also share your opinion of Josephine Tey's fictional account of the same event in The Daughter of Time? She lays blame for the act squarely on the Tudors. Her account is fiction, too, but it seemed quite plausible. Thanks again for such great work.
Well narrated. It just like a long bedtime story. Only not so boring. I mean that nicely. I've only recently came across the channel and its one [1] of my top three[3]. Thank you for the hard work and effort and inviting us who visit here to share with your wonderful finding and conclusions.
It isn’t inconceivable that Buckingham could have instigated it. All he had to do, to stay alive, is frame Richard and threaten to expose him. It’s not as if evil-intentioned counsellors have never done this kind of thing before - Eadric Streona being the most obvious example, largely responsible for the massacre on English Danes in York and constantly pushing Aethelred to self destruction (not that seems he needed much help with that). The suppression of Rivers and the Wydville faction was not put into context at all well. The intention had been to do the same as Cersei Lannister - use the heir’s authority to destroy rivals, chief f which was Richard. Either he got them first, or they would have killed him.
Just to clarify, the video is more about what happened to the Princes than what their maternal family planned to do with royal authority. There wasn't space unfortunately to get into that in what was already my longest video to date.
It’s far more conceivable than the man who usurped the throne from his nephews was probably the one who had them murdered. It wouldn’t be the 1st time a medieval king had got rid of rivals to the throne. The amount of ppl who needed to be executed, humiliated, bastardised & dishonoured for Richard to be innocent beggars belief. It’s Occam’s razor for me cos it’s far less speculative than any other Ricardian theories I’ve heard
What do you think happened to the 'Princes in the Tower'? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling and also my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Despite the disbelief of the Richard III Society, I really think that Richard planned the murder of the princes...why else would he have "needed" BOTH boys under his "protection". His claim that Edward needed his little brother to help him prepare for his coronation is absurd. It would have made more sense for Edward to need his mother (and if neither Elizabeth Woodville nor Richard could agree about this, surely Edward's eldest sister Elizabeth would have been a better choice than a child). The only reason to need both boys was to ensure that Edward's little brother could not become heir to the throne once Richard got rid of Edward.
Why were the bodies not displayed as proof that the boys were truly dead ? Well, naturally, Richard would know that bodies of children would be considered monstrous (even to late 15th century Englanders), and he wanted the whole thing to go away without tarnishing him too much....and their bodies would have shown proof of murder most foul.
Sadly, while I always wanted to believe that Richard III was framed by the Tudors, I really think that he ordered it. As you said, "Richard was no teddy bear." Nope...he was a typically ruthless Plantagenate.
I think you have to resort to the old "motive/means/opportunity" adage. By this criteria, it's down to Richard, which is my personal belief. In spite of all the whitewashing from the Richard III society, it is actually possible to be an excellent administrator, warrior and even king and still be guilty of murder. People have a hard time understanding the murder of children, and one's own nephews, at that. But I think the circumstances can help you to understand why and how Richard may have come to the conclusion that it was necessary and that it was a personal life or death situation for him .
He spent very little time at court and was always either away up north or acting on his brother's commands. I doubt if he ever developed a personal relationship with his nephews, who perhaps he saw once a year at Christmas. And I don't think you can underestimate his hatred for the Woodvilles, which was reciprocated. They had built up a lot of resentment at court by their pretentions and grasping ways. It is possible that it boiled down to a "me or them" situation for Richard.
The alarm bells went off when Edward IV died, and he had to hurry south to insure that he became the Protector, as Edward had indicated in his will.
From then on, it seems more like Richard reacting to circumstances as they happened, rather than following a well-thought out plan to seize the throne.
I think at best, Richard allowed/ignored the murder of the boys. He truly does make the most sense. Also if he truly believed, or convinced himself, that the boys were illegitimate he may have used that to help justify needing to rid of them.
@@katjack2780 9
They were murdered by Richard III cronies and buried beneath the steps of the tower.
I find it morbidly funny how there are several child skeletons that were found in the tower, and they just aren't sure which set of child skeletons could be the princes.
Yes, it is odd to our eyes the number of bones found. It just shows how many people have died in there during the building's history I guess (excluding the ones buried in the Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula).
@@HistoryCalling Not to mention the dog bones mixed in.
@@HistoryCalling I'm sure I read somewhere that their bones were found there. I could be wrong. I need to research this. ;)
Sweet Meats, which begs the question 'why won't the current royals allow dna testing on the bones?''. They know it can be done, as Richard III's remains were positively identified in 2012. Are they afraid of some secret being revealed?
such a thick atmosphere in that place. any trip to London isn’t complete without visiting... there AND the Churchill War Rooms. incredible
Wherever those poor boys are and whatever happened to them, I hope they're at peace. I can't imagine what they went through in their short lives.
I know. Their last few weeks must have been increasingly frightening.
@@HistoryCalling Is it true or fiction that Edward spent much time preparing himself for the death he believed was near.If so,poor kid.
@@susanmccormick6022 apparently a doctor who visited him regularly reports him praying, preparing himself for death. He’d probably already been warned he wasn’t safe. Plus he witnessed Earl Rivers, (his uncle) Richard Grey (his half brother) & Thomas Vaughan (his tutor) being arrested by Richard (while the young king protested their innocence & was ignored) so he had a 1st hand account of how determined Richard was to seize power. I imagine when hearing the news of the 3 men mentioned being executed that he knew Richard could never let him be king.
Edward IV made a grave mistake appointing one man as lord protector (Richard, practically a stranger to prince Edward) & a whole other faction of men to raise him tutor him, men he formed bonds with. There was bound to be chaos when he died.
We don´t know if their lives were short.
@@lyndsaycrawford Rivers and Grey committed treason, check Annette Carson´s detailed article The mysterious affair at Stony Stratford. Youg Edward was praying because it was part of his daily routine like for millions of other people. It´s 100 % sure that Richard didn´t even think about seizing the power. On the contrary, everywhere they stop on the way to London he ask everyone to take an oath to the new king Edward. As Richard was very pious he didn´t take this lightly, it was very serious matter for him.
It would be interesting to see the financial ledgers of the Tower, as they would likely show the changes in cost of food, laundry and staffing, once the boys had alledgedly been murdered.
I know it's been done in Sherrif Hutton, where it shows that there were high-born boys there AFTER the so-called ''murder''.
@@ljon2243you are pathetic. They were murdered.
Wow that's a great idea...never even crossed my mind!😮
I know for Henry Pole, another child locked up by Henry viii, the ledger shows he was no longer being fed after 1542. His grandmother was killed in 1541. He is another missing child. He was more than likely killed from starvation. He was a descendent of the Plantagenet which is why I think he was ultimately killed.
Let's be honest it was without doubt Richard 3rd who was responsible.
Poor Elizabeth Woodville. Death of children at that time was certainly not uncommon, but to lose three of your children to, essentially, murder all within months of each other…I doubt she ever got over that. 💔
And to have her namesake daughter marry one of the suspects...
@@edithengel2284 : henry tudor, has never been viewed as a suspect, only the historian phillippa gregory in her novel & drama... the white queen...
he spent most of his life in exile in brittany & wales, far away from the tower of london..
there is a hidden or unkown house of beaufourt, that york, plantagenet,lancaster and tudor are related ...
richard III & the duke of buckingham both had a motive to remove or make the * princes dissapear*, or claim they were illegitmate,
the later duke of buckingham rebellion is still unexplained and every historian disagrees with each other...
richard III never publicly said he executed them, or not, or did what henry VII had done, too the crowds of london, make earl of warwick appear...
no bodies were ever found, no evidence that either richard III or henry VII ever executed them, endless speculation and 2 pretenders ,
officially one was crowned king of ireland, later was a kitchen servant...
the other perkin warbek fooled half of kings of europe...and was officially executed , after a planned escape with the earl of warkwick...
philippa langley, the woman that found richard III in the car park, was called a *mad woman for even trying* , is now behind the project to *find the missing princes* ,
did one of the princes become a lord in devon, the clue is in the church?
@@edithengel2284Clearly she didn't think he was. Marrying her daughter to their dynastic rivals would have condemned her sons to death. She clearly thought they were already dead. Unless Henry somehow killed them while in France in England's primary stronghold she never would have considered him responsible.
@@hellsjamfleas I agree that she believed her sons were not alive; by the time Princess Elizabeth married Henry, I'm sure her mother believed the princes were dead. However, even if the senior Elizabeth thought Henry had had something to do with their deaths, it would hardly have been either safe or pragmatic to deny him her daughter, so it would be impossible to tell if she suspected him.
In fact, I was not so much saying that she herself believed Henry was behind their deaths, as that it is painful to think that in addition to everything else the family had suffered, it was not beyond the possible that Elizabeth had married the man responsible for her brothers' deaths.
Do you really think that Elizabeth Woodville, if she thought her brother in law murdered her young sons, would have left sanctuary, entrusted her daughters to his care and entreated her son by her first husband to return to England and make peace with Richard? She also received land and a generous stipend from Richard. Soon after marrying her daughter Henry VII, stripped her of everything she owned and forced her into a convent to be locked up for the rest of her life.
What I find puzzling is the fact that Richard apparently had his nephews secretly killed, but then relied on everyone just forgetting about them! Why in the world would he think that? Why wouldn't he explain their absence in some way that would enable the public to absolve him? For instance, "Sadly, the young princes contracted the sweating sickness while they were under protection in the Tower. They will be buried together with all honors" etc. Even taking into account the fact that he had declared them illegitimate, he should still have had to explain what became of them! Whether illegitimate or not, they were still the sons of the former King. It just seems to me that Richard should have been aware of the public's speculation at the time, and taken steps to mitigate their suspicion.
Maybe he just assumed that since he was de-facto Regent even while the boys were alive, and once he took the throne (quickly), nobody would dare try to take it away or challenge him. The Woodvilles would have no political power to hurt him if the boys were dead. Almost as if he were saying "What princes do you mean? I'm the King, i don't have to explain anything. Now do something about it if you dare." I think public opinion was less important back then when it came to monarchs with actual power (and Richard wasn't the only one of the dead King's relations who hated the Woodvilles). Everyone would have suspected he did it, but keep your mouth shut about it publicly or it might be treason.
The entire Nobility hated the Woodvilles, as they were "of vile birth".
Also, Richard was Edward IVs' right hand, a competent politician, and administrator of the North.
No, YOU deserve a gold star for producing such well researched and expertly commented videos! I enjoy them hugely. As I've seen a loooot of documentaries on the Tudors etc. I appreciate new perspectives from original sources. Especially when you give such great context for all of them! ⭐
Thank you so much for making it to the end of the video and for such a lovely comment. :-) I'm delighted you enjoyed it.
I agree with you Theresa, she DOES deserve a big gold star!
YOU deserve a gold star for presenting such a thorough examination! I love that you mention the un-glamorous yet telling evidence of the mundane laundry and foodstuffs. Would there be any way to examine the ledgers of the tower during a time when the boys were known to be alive and in residence, and compare over time to see if there is a noticeable change?
In my opinion Richard had the boys killed. They disappeared whilst under his care, their existence was a possible threat to his kingship, and he had already proved himself utterly ruthless when it came to removing anyone who stood in his way.
Except there is written evidence of the Princes in Europe after 1483.
The woman who was instrumental in finding Richard's place of burial in Leicester is now looking at the fate of his nephews, the Princes. (Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society.) She did amazing work and should have had greater acclaim.
🎯🎯🎯
I agree 100%. Outstanding work on finding Richard III.
She hasnt found proof. The one lettrr that says "son of King Edward of England or similar, could well mean Edward IV s illegimate son or Warbeck who later was a proven imposter.
I saw her documentary on the fate of the boys … It’s honestly all speculation and hyped up nonsense with a reliance on foreign sources with a total biased agenda😱
She is not an unbiased source however, as she is obsessed with Richard to the point of being infatuated with him. You need someone with an open mind, like the narrator of this video.
I don't know if she's mastered cloning technology but how in the world does she manage to get these long, detailed posts out week after week? I watch channels that can't get a 15 minute post out twice a month and she's putting out a weekly documentary. I'm exhausted just thinking about it. ;-) Cheers.
Researching and quoting sources, images, writing the script, editing the whole thing together, uploading & filling in the TH-cam channels sections, then answering the comments... my theory is that History Calling is actually a secretive group of several rogue, out of control Historians who don't follow the rules, answer to no master, talk loudly in libraries while traveling far and wide, researching and uploading the TRUTH about History!! 😲 Or maybe she just works really hard.😁
It's just lots of hard work I'm afraid. I will say though that videos on the Tudors (of which I do quite a few) tend to go faster because at this point, I've already researched a lot of the images I need.
Thank you so much. I wish I'd mastered cloning. Think how rich I'd be! :-)
I would like to know if you have read Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time & if so, what do you think of her opinion of More? Thank you.
@@JohnDoe-tx8lq Do you think they run with scissors?
I had a Mideival History Professor in Grad School compare the Kings and Queens of Plantagenet, York and Tudor lines to the Mob Bosses of the 20th Century. He made the argument that Richard would have most likely quietly ordered someone expendable to carry out the murders. The disappearance of the Prince's would have erased competition for his son Edward of Middleham. Edward died a year after the last sighting of the two Prince's making their murders even more pointless.
Something along these lines is the truth, I believe.
The royal families of Europe were quite ruthless in order to maintain their positions and lineages, although the death of the boys was tragic, I doubt very much if murder would have been so unusual at that time.
I completely agree. Their youth makes it all particularly bad, but the body count within medieval royal families was appallingly high anyway.
King John secured the throne by murdering his nephew Prince Arthur so it was not without precedence.
@@HistoryCalling You mean the Tudors right? Because I haven't heard of too many before them killing their own close relatives unless it was in battle.
In reality Queen Elizabeth shouldn't even be on the throne. A guy in Australia should be the rightful King but he wants no part of it all.
The man about 2 or more years back who did accoupple of videos on the subject, proving what he was saying just dissapeared from You Tube along with his videos.
Well...they did get rid of Princess Diana and crew way back so Dianna couldn't marry a guy the Royals dissaproved of and then they pretended to burry the body on that island where they burried their pets. They actually had her body burned.
For those who might go bonkers about the above statements, sorry about that. It's done and gone. Arguments aren't going to bring back the dead. I mean no disrespecting the Royals in charge or anything, it's just this video proves the whole point of what folks will do to stay in power.
Look at all the corruption in the U.S. government right now run by commies, Obama and the puppetmasters controling Sniffy & Cameltoe. Useing thousands and thousands of printed out PHONEY BALLOTS BEING PUT INTO RIGGED VOTEING MACHINES HOOKED UP TO SATALITES THAT CHANGED TRUMP'S VOTES TO Biden votes !
Obama is playing President though his puppet Biden so it's not just a 'Royal Family' thing, it's a some people will do pretty much anything to gain power and to keep it.
@@ghostcityshelton9378 Well your heads in the right place by not trusting them but you are wrong about US politics. Its not run by commies its run by bankers. Obama Biden, Trump, all of them are actors reading scripts with no power at all. They are puppets to the real people in charge, And the elections aren't rigged they are fake. There is a big difference. Its all a fake show to keep us all divided, a soap opera, while the same people in real power and have been for generations stay in power. The politicians have no power at all and haven't for a long time. Powerless actors taking orders and reading their lines each day,
Edward's V's younger brother Richard whilst usually termed simply as 'Duke of York' had also been created 'Duke of Norfolk' by Edward IV - illegitimacy is no bar to the holding of any noble title, there are a great many examples of this. Richard III created Howard as Duke of Norfolk in June 1483, and since there was no Act of Attainder against Richard (Edward V's brother) then this creation could only be legal if the previous holder was dead. Logically therefore Richard, and indeed many of those around him, knew in June 1483 that Richard, Duke of York and of Norfolk was already dead.
Yes, that is another little piece of the puzzle, though Richard might have nevertheless tried to say (incorrectly) that the title was vacant due to illegitimacy anyway or that he was empowered to strip his nephew of it (which he was, but I'm not aware of him ever formerly removing it from his nephew). I agree with you that in fact it suggests little Richard of Shrewsbury was no more or that RIII knew his nephew would soon be dead.
That’s a good point
Illegitimacy is definitely no bar to being "noble". Most of the so-called nobility are bastards!
That is certainly a very interesting point, as whether Richard of Shrewsbury was illegitimate or not was irrelevant to whether he could remain Duke of Norfolk, since as you say, he was not inheriting the title, but had been created the first holder of the title. (Just like Henry VIII's illegitimate son, the Duke of Richmond.) I think that this is actually the most persuasive piece of evidence that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the two princes that I have ever heard.
If nothing else could have convinced Elizabeth Woodville that her sons were dead or going to be soon, hearing that John Howard had been created Duke of Norfolk would have done it. As soon as anyone heard that Howard was now the duke, they would have known the boys were doomed, if not already dead. It sends a chill down my spine to imagine hearing that .
Thanks for posting that comment!
I agree that Richard has been unfairly maligned by Tudor apologists and history in general, but I also don't think Richard was fundamentally different from nobles of the day who were willing to be ruthless when it came to their positions of power and their survival. Who gets the throne, and who was in or out of favor, was bloody business back then for everyone, and being a nice guy just got you dead. Richard ordering the death of the princes makes the most sense to me as a self-preservation move to eliminate the possibility the Woodvilles could again wield actual power and have him eliminated on some trumped up charge after Edward V officially assumed the throne. Richard wasn't a Satanic villain with a lust for power, but he WAS trying to protect himself from his enemies once his brother was dead. He wasn't worse than the Tudors, but I don't think he was fundamentally better either simply based on when he lived, the position he was in, and how the game was played.
I think he had it done and they were suffocated. If i was born at that time i would secure my future and families future by any means. Im no murderess, but im no saint either.🤭
@@grassfedmilkmomma A little bit of the blame has to be put on Edward the 4th; if he had took better care of himself, he wouldn't have died at such A early age.
Edward IV made a disaster of his guardianship. Since Edward v was 2 he was governed by Anthony Woodville. I mean Anthony Woodville was probably more of a father figure to him than his own father. He adored one uncle, his guardian(Rivers) & hardly knew the other. Who was to be lord protector (Richard) Edward IV should’ve either named Woodville lord protector or had Richard govern him & raise him.
Of course Richard felt threatened but so did the Woodville’s. It’s not fair only to view it from one person’s perspective. It was dog eat dog. Everyone involved n this debacle was looking after their own interests, positions of power & their life. As soon as Richard arrested & executed Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey & Thomas Vaughan (die hard Yorkists btw) he sealed the fate of both boys. He must’ve known young Edward would’ve punished him, very likely executed him for that act alone when he came into his majority. He knew he had to get rid of Edward & his brother if he executed Rivers & co & he decided to execute them anyway.
At least the Woodville’s actually planned to crown him & rule through him to protect themselves from oh I don’t know, maybe someone getting their hands on the king & his younger brother, locking them away & usurping the crown.
@@lyndsaycrawford Sure. Medieval power politics wasn't for the timid or the saintly.
I agree. Richard III wasn't an brooding, cruel, psychopath. He was a man of his time, IN A TIME when life was very unpredictable and volatile.
Judgement from a modern perspective on the 1500s is a biased view. We all live in a type of luxury, in our modern lives compared to 500yrs ago.
How terribly sad, that two young boys, died. So that the threat of thier, succession, was removed. Poor boys.. Rest in heavenly peace.
I know. Even given the brutality of the medieval period, this stands out as one of the real low-points in English royal history.
@@HistoryCalling indeed monstrous, I thoroughly believe it was Margaret Beauford, behind it all. Thus the curse, which proved to be the evidence, time would tell.
Ohhhhh.... can't wait for this one! Going to take myself to a long lunch and enjoy this today, a cold and rainy day... should be perfect. :)
I hope you like it. It is indeed a long one!
This was fascinating. I have read many books on the Tudors, but I admit they were mostly around Henry VIII and Elizabeth I's time back in the 90s. That alone is fantastic material.
I can't recall when or where I read it, but my mother, who also is a big reader both can remember something about Henry VII being the mastermind behind the murders for the reason that you pointed out. He doesn't seem to fit the bill. The murders helped him in his claims to the throne, plus no one ever thought of blaming him and he wasn't a nice man.
Yes, I definitely made it to the end of this video 😀 It was absolutely brilliant - Thank you! I haven't watched a documentary or other video on this subject that has been as thorough and honest. Sending all the best from Australia 👍
This gave me more and then any of the other things I’ve ever read about it. So thank you very much. It was clearly a tragedy and I felt so bad for your mother. They were just children innocent kids. I don’t believe in royalty- everyone is the same- so this is just double tragic that they were really truly killed for nothing but a power move.
Their mother handed them over to Richard willingly. She had no fear of him. So perhaps they were still alive when Richard died.
This was a fun lecture!!! Loved it! Their mother needed to have been very powerful and assertive and have the necessary connections and clout to strike Richard III before he struck the boys. She didn’t have any of that. They were doomed. It’s so sad. Those poor scared boys.
Yes, I'm sure she had awful guilt that she wasn't able to better protect them. I'm glad you liked the video. Thank you for watching :-)
The Woodville’s actually had quite a lot of power when Edward IV died. Unfortunately Richard just moved faster & took the young king, arresting then executing any Woodville’s surrounding Edward V. The Woodville’s were definitely planning to rule through the young king but at least he would’ve been crowned & himself & his wee brother would’ve survived.
I love 'The Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey. Brief synopsis: a recovering police officer looks into the case, as a police officer, looking for proof both pro and con for both sides. Ottimo!
One of my favorite books!
I was just on Audible looking for a new book to listen to and as this is my favorite time period and one of the most fascinating and tragic mysteries I'm intrigued.
Thanks for unknowingly recommending it❤
@@hardyquinn9442 The reader should be Scottish - he's fantastic - you really get into the characters
@@hardyquinn9442 enjoy!!
Yes! This novel puts forward some really convincing arguments, one of which is that it was far more in Henry VII’s interest to rid himself of the two princes after he defeats R III on the battlefield. I really recommend reading it if you are interested in this period of history. Tey also argues that R III was a good person and leader not resembling the picture Shakespeare paints in his play. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I was very excited to see that you were featuring this topic. I also love that you include pictures, drawings and other applicable/sample documents in your storytelling. I believe, unfortunately, that the boys were murdered, probably under orders from Richard. It's too bad the bones can't be tested. It would be heart-warming and proper to see the two little boys get the burial they deserve.
Hi Connie. I'm glad you like appreciate the images etc. as they typically take a long time to source. Yes, I think they were murdered too on R's orders and would love to see the bones tested, but (even assuming there's enough left to test), I don't think they ever will be.
Yeah, especially when you consider the fact that Richard III's bones got a proper burial, with people lining the street and Sophie, Countess of Wessex representing the Royal Family.
@@jn8ive60 I always think about that. Perhaps the Richard iii society should try n get funding or some kinda collective support to try to determine whether they are actually princes remains & not just to try n prove Edward IV was illegitimate but to put their poor souls to rest.
@@lyndsaycrawford It is down to the Queen and the current Royal Family what happens to the bones. So far they have refused any further tests.
One has to wonder why?
Yes it would be.
Another excellent and informative talk. Those poor little boys and what a horrific, scary time to be alive.
Thank you and I completely agree.
I find it telling that the stories about what happened to the prices gets more elaborate as time goes on. This is more the way of legend than of history which makes these later stories unreliable to my mind. We then have the fact that later pretenders claimed to be Richard rather than Edward. This would suggest to me that at the time, the most strongly believed story was that Edward had died and Richard had somehow escaped. At this distance there is no way to know what might have happened without a forensic examination, but I believe we should not rule out natural causes. Richard might not have admitted to this for fear of being blamed and fuelling even more opposition.
I hate when people use Philippa Gregory's books as if they were some sort of source about actual events. The obvious being they are historical fiction and anyone with a knowledge of the actual events can easily point out things cut out, rearranged, or sometimes just invented whole cloth. Second, reading her books her bias against the Tudors and for Richard in the novels set in the War of the Roses practically reaches out of the pages and smacks you in the face.
Richard killed his nephews to secure his grip on power and to eliminate any potential of him being overthrown and the rightful king being restored. Sometimes the simplest and most obvious answer is the best one.
Yup. I agree. I loved the Philippa novels, but they are stories "based" on available data. The author does not pretend to be a time-traveller, although it would seem that many of her readers think that she must have been. I think that Richard did it. Imprisoning both boys "proves" it to me.
@@leanie5234 Unfortunately, I think a lot of her readers believe every word; they don't seem to have any other knowledge of history to compare it to. And it's not helped by historical British television shows including her as one of the "experts."
Plus, it's so obvious that she hates Anne Boleyn/Elizabeth I. EVERY other novel, she's sympathetic or able to paint someone - even King Henry VIII - in a positive light. I've yet to read a novel that's from Elizabeth's "real" perspective. Even stories about her are told through other people's eyes, I don't think she's ever written a first person one for her. One that gets into what she went through. One that doesn't outright seem to damn Anne Boleyn. Like, she definitely lets her opinions and ideas get in the way of things that could be told beautifully. Like, you can hate Anne or Elizabeth or Catherine (any of them) or Richard or Edward or Henry, but shouldn't all the people, not just the ones you like, get a proper story told? To be seen as something more than a cardboard cut out? Sorry, bigger rant than expected. I just watched Taylor Swift's All Too Well Short Film (twice) and I have a lot of emotions!
@@katjack2780 everything points to Richard III. There's no other viable explanation.
I've just been reading all your comments. I agree that it is annoying when one is trying to communicate real history (or at least an account of events which is as grounded as possible in actual evidence) to constantly have that undermined by works of historical fiction that are treated as fact by so many people. I can't fault Phillipa Gregory for writing historical fiction. I'm sure if any of us could do it as successfully as she has, we would, but I agree that it's annoying to see her inventions treated as correct and she herself as an expert. I'd need to check, but I think her PhD is in English (which makes total sense for a fiction writer) and so to my mind she simply isn't a professional historian. I wouldn't mind if only she would admit more often that what she's written is made up instead of presenting it as a serious, well researched, plausible theory, supported by evidence. It's interesting that amateur historians can be taken so seriously, when (for example) an amateur lawyer, doctor, or accountant never would be. They're very different skill sets of course, but it actually takes longer to do a PhD than a medical degree, so I'm afraid it makes me a bit grumpy when it seems like many people think they can just decide to be an historian without the relevant training. After all, it took me about 7 and a half years at university to learn how to do this properly! Apologies - rant over :-)
Thank you! I actually went to the Tower some years back and heard the story there, but it was a guided tour with nothing close to the level of detail you put into it. I really appreciate your examination of evidence in such depth.
Thank you and you're welcome :-)
OMG, I want to go to the Tower so badly, I want to take AT LEAST 1 YEAR to Just rent an RV and just drive all around Great Britain and visit all the Historic Castles from the 1066 Norman Conquest up to the End of the Tudors. I Also Love Mary Queen of Scott’s story. But forgive me for this, I lose all interest after the Death of Elizabeth 1 . I have read the History of James the 1st and every King and/or Queen since . They just can’t hold my Interest.
Such a sad story of two little boys!!! I think if they saw the September they would have been lucky. However they died hopefully it was swift! Thanks for a in-depth and interesting investigation! X
Thanks Ann. Yes, it was tragic and I agree with you that they probably didn't see the end of summer 1483.
Well done!
I think the swift execution of Hastings who had been Edward IV's closest leige man all his life is one of the most important pointers to Richard's involvement.
My thanks for an exquisitely concise synopsis of this mystery. What struck me most was HMS the Queen's reluctance to permit DNA analysis of the bones when she had no objection to such a test being performed on their uncle, i.e.: Richard III. Odd, no?
Thanks Karen :-) To answer your query, Elizabeth II has control over the 'Princes' bones because of where they are housed, rather than because of her distant familial relationship to them (same with Anne Boleyn). Richard's bones were found in an area outside her control and so she had no say in what was done with them.
@@HistoryCalling Thanks for the answer!
Also consider that when Richard was found, he was found in a parking lot. He was needing to be buried properly. The two sets of remains which may or may not be these princes (or prince & king as I see the two who died) are buried. To exhume them from graves is very different from examining remains which are already being handled and not yet laid to rest.
@@michellebaker6302 The remains aren't in a grave, so no digging involved.
@@perniciouspete4986 True, but being within a consecrated building, would they come under Home Office authority? English burial law can get a bit complicated - exhumations from a cemetery or official burial place are very much the HO's domain.
I absolutely LOVE this channel, and I sincerely appreciate all the work you put in.
My mam gave me my love of history, and she would have loved this channel, too. I cannot give you a higher compliment than that!! Xxx
I read that in the 20th century there were two skeletons found in a space behind a wall, when remodeling was being done in the tower. I read it decades ago (pre-computer). There is an article about a woman and child buried under the tower's chapel with the line, "first full skeletons to be discovered since the 1970s". Yet I can't find any reference to the full skeleton(s) discovered in the tower during the 1970s anywhere online. I had presumed the skeletal remains behind a wall were those of the two Princes.
the weeks just fly by anymore, so glad though excited to watch!😎
Thank you :-)
I think they were murdered but how directly uncle Richard was involved I don't know. It is appalling how much death there was every time a throne changed hands for hundreds if not thousands of years. Thank you for doing this video. I love how careful you are to lay out who said what and when and letting your audience speculate for themselves.
Thanks Matia. I'm glad you like it. Yes, it was a dangerous era to be a member of the royal family, especially if you were close to the throne.
How many people were killed by Richard, Duke of Gloucester/Richard III?
There are billions of potential people who were never born and they really don't mind.
Richard being directly involved is clear from the get go. Him announcing that he was entitled to the crown is already a huge give away.
@Suuusan28 His power grab was what basically sealed Henry Vii's claim near the end of the Wars of The Roses. His most infamous crime was the Princes, although no proof was ever fully uncovered
I am in the midst of reading Philippa Gregory's Plantagenet novels in order. I'm reading "The White Princess" now. I'm enjoying them and I understand that it's historical fiction, not history, so I'm fine with an author filling in the blanks with what can only be speculation in real life. But the one place I wish Gregory hadn't gone is a sexual relationship between Elizabeth of York and her UNCLE, Richard III. EEEEWWWWW.
I know. It's like reading a history of the Habsburgs! :-)
Totally agree. Some of the things she put in her novels are ridiculous.
I'm reading the White Queen, haven't gotten up to the White Princess yet. I'm really enjoying the series, and I love reading around the subject to find the truth of what she puts in as fact. I don't mind some embellishment of the truth, or taking some of the rumors of the time and running with them (such as Prince Edward of Lancaster being the son of Somerset, not Henry VI) but sometimes she goes a little too far.
I've read them all :)
I read them years ago and remember there being a lot of drama. I didn’t remember that and have no care to. Yuck.
Richard III was called by his enemies Crookback. He was first-rate general, brave, and absolutely loyal to his brother, Edward IV,
who liked and trusted him. Could such a man have murdered his own nephews ?But it is certain that he had grown up in the violent years of the Wars of the Roses and he knew well that the way to win power was to strike suddenly without scruple and pity. Thanks so much for your video, which I always enjoyed very much.
Great comment but I think Richard III killed the princes. But that's just my opinion.
Exactly! That’s what puzzles me… If they were murdered, he seems like the most likely suspect, but it doesn’t tally nicely with his reported personality and many other actions… I’m definitely not a fanatic Ricardian, preferring to distance myself from any blind support for historical characters, however, his long lasting loyalty to his brother Edward, even during the rebellions of Warwick and their other brother George, Duke of Clarence.
There is the theory that Edward V died from natural causes and Gloucester tried to cover it up because of how shameful it would be if discovered, and I can actually believe that, based on other evidence, but then there’s holes in the theory, such as “what happened to Richard of Shrewsbury?”…
@@lfgifu296 I can think of a few motives, including a sort of 'self-defence' if he was worried about the Woodvilles moving against him while they had control of the boy-king. Richard would have learned a lot from the Wars of the Roses, including the dangers of having rivals claimants to throne around and the problems of having a king who was unable to govern in his own right. I'm not saying I'd have murdered my nephews if I'd been in Richard's position... but I also can't say I'd completely rule it out either.
@@punkykenickie2408 Poor Edward V and Richard, duke of york was never able to enjoy life.
I think that it's important to remember he had witnessed what happened to a kingdom with a child king (Henry VI), and the political instability that resulted. No excuse for murder, but it's hard to say what actually happened. I think it's important to remember that all these people were products of their time and circumstance. The more you research this, the more questions are raised and I honestly believe that it is wrong to take sides in something with iffy evidence from 500 years+ ago.
I have read everything, fiction & non on this subject as well as all of Morgan Llewellyn's books on English & Welsh history. I like British history so much that I have read all I can get my hands on many times over. Thank you so much for your retelling of this part of the history that speaks so deeply to all who know of it.
You're so welcome :-) I'm delighted you enjoyed it. There's always a risk with a story as famous as this that people won't like it because it's impossible to really add anything new to the information out there, so I'm happy that you still enjoyed it, even with your prior extensive reading on the topic.
I really enjoyed your video! Informative, well made, great!
I loved Philippa Gregory’s novels, and I’m totally aware it’s fiction of some historic events. A reimagining with some magical aspects even. It doesn’t distract me from the facts or real history. But they did grow so famous that for some people the lines get blurred. ( I believe it also happened a lot with Shakespeare’s characters as well. The way he interpreted is many times seen as the real deal, when some historians say it wasn’t quite like that)
Yes, historical fiction is great for introducing people to the topic and getting them interested, but as you say, some people do take it as fact and it can be difficult to dissuade them from believing fictional stories after that, even when you put the contemporary evidence in front of them. Tis an uphill battle, that's for sure!
Personally, I very much enjoy longer videos providing they're well researched and presented - and you get a gold star on both counts! It must have been very time-consuming for you, so thank you very much indeed for such a well-balanced examination of a fascinating subject.
Thank you so much. I'm glad you enjoyed it. It is indeed quite a marathon to do one this length. I definitely prefer something in the region of 15-20 minutes! :-)
This is one of the best researched videos I have seen on the subject. Thanks so much for all your hard work.
Wow, thank you! :-)
I remember hearing one of my teachers telling me about the princes in the tower when I was in 5th grade. Their story was truly tragic since they didn't ask to be born into royalty and were treated as pawns with no control over their lives. Though it was rumored that their uncle had them murdered, it was never really proven.
Richard III is A coward; he couldn't beat his brother in A straight up battle-So he had to take away his nephews birthrights.
@@savagedarksider5934 I wonder where the boys' father was during all this time they were in the tower?
@@Elly3981 Edward the 4th had passed away by the time they were put in the tower.
@@Elly3981dead (to clarify, when they were in the tower, their father was already dead)
It infuriates me that the women had no control.
Many thanks.
You're welcome 😊
Well done! Being a historian myself I can appreciate the good research and presentation skills you put into this work. Your accent is just fine. In fact, I was not sure at all where you were from until I thought I heard "guards of the tar". Then later I realized you said "tower". 🙂. No matter, brilliant work.
Fascinating!! Well done ♥️!!
I hope the Princes are at peace 🕊️🌹! Sadly they went through such an injustice 😔.
Just wanted to say that I stumbled upon your TH-cam vids a few weeks
Ago after I split up with my ex and I wasn’t sleeping for days on end but I found your channel and your amazing knowledge took me away from it all and I listen to the vids all the time now. I love The tudors and English history so much and I’ve learnt so much from your videos! Probs to much info haha but just wanted to show my appreciation and thanks for helping me get through such a difficult time ☺️ I look forward to your vids every Friday now xx
The fact that there was no official burial of two princes just proves that they were murdered by someone who had everything to gain from having them deleted from history to further his own claim to the throne. This could only have been their uncle. Other monarchs would have honored them with a real burial after they ascended the throne. This was clandestine murder on the order of their uncle Richard, no doubt about it.
The real mystery for me is why on Earth did Richard apparently just think nobody was ever going ask where the boys were? Why not produce the bodies and come up with a lie about what happened to them? Richard otherwise seems to have been intelligent and capable, but for some reason he's just... hoping everyone somehow forgets about the boys in the Tower? That's the bit I don't understand! Especially since he may well have been involved in the murder of Henry VI so he'd have experience of doing a bit of regicide in the Tower and then passing it off as natural causes.
@@punkykenickie2408 I think you and Marianne A have actually made two good points in favor of Richard not being the murderer. I agree, Richard was bright enough to know that to fulfill his desire of ridding himself of potential heirs, he had to proclaim their deaths and produce the bodies, more or less looking as if the children had died peacefully. Even if everyone really thought Richard had murdered them, they were mostly intimidated from more than whispering it secretly. And the important fact would have been that everyone was sure they were really dead, discouraging pretenders.
And regarding Marianne A's points: The fact that there was no official burial during Richard's life might mean that the Princes were still alive. And it is also odd, that once Henry VII had taken over, he never produced the bodies either, which one might have thought would be the obvious thing to do, especially since there was a subsequent parade of pretenders in his reign. It may, of cours,e be true the bodies were no longer to be found when Henry came to the throne, so he couldn't do that. However the point remains that substantial questions remain about Richard's guilt.
@@edithengel2284 I don't think they could have died by any cause without Richard knowing about it and *something* must have happened to them and if it was illness or an accident then why not say so?
It's possible they died in a way that in some way *looked* supiscious and Richard panicked a bit about people assuming he'd killed them and putting off telling anyone and then eventually he's left with no bodies (they went mouldy long ago D: ) and no way to prove his version of events. He never seemed like the type to panic but that's probably my best guess for what happened if Richard didn't actually kill them.
@@punkykenickie2408 Yes, I agree. If they had died, it would make sense for him to say so. So why didn't he? Maybe because they weren't dead. (Although, to be just, equally they could have been killed by some method that left too obvious a sign that they'd been murdered.). In any event, I am not sure who I think killed them, or even if they were murdered.
A superlative work! The length was fine. I most enjoyed this one. I have long been intrigued by the "Princes in the Tower" tale. You handled it with perfect excellence. None of this hysterical silliness that other documentaries have sunk to. Especially if they have a Pro-Richard III bias. Well done tonight.
Thanks Lee :-) I'm glad the length didn't put you off (though it nearly put me off when I saw how long my script was getting!)
Richard III had the strongest motive, the most to benefit, and had the means to see it through. I hate the thought of children being murdered, but all signs point to that being the case.
Well, the princes were almost certainly disappeared by someone. Richard and Henry Tudor would have benefitted, but Richard had the access.
Your videos are always the peak of my Friday! This one especially-such a fascinating topic !
Thank you. Yes, it is a great mystery. I do wonder if we'll ever get any answers to it (probably not if the Westminster urn bones are never properly examined for DNA).
It would be amazing if we one day, in this lifetime did.
I wish they'd just examine them, it's the murder of two innocent children, two innocent royal children I might add. 🤞
Thank you.
How different the lineage to the throne would have been if either or both of the boys had lived. More so if they had married and had sons.
I absolutely love this woman's voice..
Excellent synopsis! Definitely the most thorough and clear that I’ve ever seen. Well done!
Thank you so much :-)
@@HistoryCalling When Henry VI died of sorrow, his body was displayed. It is likely Henry VI was killed on Edward IV's orders but everyone went along with the story that he suddenly died of natural causes. In other words, the English did not have trouble with expediency. Richard could have arranged an "accident" or "fatal illness" for his nephews and displayed their bodies. It would have saved him a lot of trouble. Obviously, he did not take this route. Personally, I believe that Richard sent the boys to his home in the North to be raised with the Duke of Clarence's children and Richard's own illegitimate children. The boys also may have been sent to Burgundy because the Yorks often sought refuge in that country.
Very well done, thank you!
What a wonderful telling of the princes. Such a complicated topic explained concisely and entertaining. Great job. Personally, I would think that Richard would not have buried them in any way to be preserved. I think he would have used lime to dissolve the bones just to make any evidence of them dissappear. It would be interesting to sample the bones found, to find out if they are, infact, the brothers.
Thank you. Yes, this is a rare instance where I would be in favour of testing a deceased person's bones as well.
@@HistoryCalling mi dispiace che non c'è in italiano il tuo video ..Da quello che capisco ..bravissima
Masterful presentation! You get the gold star! Truly one of the most complete accounts of this mystery which still haunts us today. Why oh why can’t permission be given to try to solve it!!!! Thank you and have a lovely New Year!
One of my favorites so far!
I would love if they tried to test the DNA of what remains we do have, but that's sadly not likely.
Thanks Alycia. Yes, I would love DNA too, but agree it's sadly unlikely.
@@HistoryCalling Can't understand her reluctance.Its infuriating.
@Kim Alison it isn't not knowing what happened to them that bugs me, as it's not like we ever will know. It's not knowing if we have the right people that piques my interest. Because if it came to be that they weren't the Princes, that would be curious indeed. I suppose I have a bit of a different opinion on disturbing the dead as I am not Christian so I do not hold the same views on death, but I can respect that it's her decision to make, and she followed her morals making it.
@@bonnie7898 It cannot be proven. Even if the bones in Westminster are those of the princes, we still will not know how they died.
@Kitten in the Moon given where the bones were located it would seem quite likely they were murdered as if the dna showed that they were indeed the princes (king/prince) AND both are together that is strong evidence that they were placed together, carelessly (not in their own chambers), in death.
Very interesting!
First of all-it’s all fascinating information. You apologize for it being overly long, but I think most of us listening aren’t bored in the least. I could listen with my full attention on your lecture for much longer than the length of this particular video, which was well researched and very informative and thoroughly interesting throughout!
I agree with your analysis and also think that Richard lll had the 2 Princes murdered. He was in charge of them when they went missing, and he certainly had the most to gain . He must have decided to do it as soon as he sent for the younger brother to join his older brother before his coronation. He wanted to get them together and ensure that he wiped out all of the competition in one foul blow. It seems glaringly obvious to me that this was his deliberate intention all along. There was nobody who had such a strong motivation to eliminate those poor children and he made sure that they were separated from their mother and anyone who would look out for their best interests.
I do find it to be strange that they left them to rot in the tower though after they murdered the children. There would have undoubtedly been a terrible smell from their decaying corpses, and even if it eventually subsided, it would have been apparent for quite a while. Did nobody ever discuss the strange odor or any other atypical things that occurred in the maintenance of the Tower? Were there “janitors” and did no cleaning persons ever notice a foul odor, especially after the kids disappeared?
I also wonder why the man who eventually confessed said that they had been moved if they hadn’t been. Maybe he had been told the wrong information, but it would seem odd to make such a serious confession and then deliberately lie about the location of the bodies.
I also wonder why the Queen didn’t want to have the remains examined to identify the bones that were found? Perhaps she thought that if her father and grandfather didn’t think it was important, that she would leave well enough alone too However, with the many amazing advances that have been made since the 1930s it would finally be possible to prove whether or not they are the bones of the lost princes. It seems like they are the bones and it would be nice to clear up the situation definitively once and for all! Perhaps King Charles will be more permissive about it.
It was an unimaginable nightmare for the children to have perished in such a heartlessly cruel manner at the hands of their evil uncle. It would be a small consolation to have their identities establishe for posterity so that we could at least know that they are indeed the murdered children (I think they are). It would be satisfying to solve the mystery of where they ended up for history’s sake and in the sanctity of their memories. Thank you very much for such an informative video!
Thank you xxx
I'm inclined towards the Richard theory. He had motive and opportunity, unlike the rest of the suspects, and his contemporaries clearly blamed him (though this is hardly evidence on its own). Illness that took out both boys is a possibility, though that requires us to believe that Richard thought it better to stay silent rather than make their deaths public. Either way, he was going to be accused of killing them.
Regardless, he definitely isolated the boys by having their other close relatives killed and restricting access to them.
I do agree with the point that killing two boys was not as shocking then as it is to us. It's easy to forget that the Black Death was less than 40 years previously, plus the War of the Roses that had taken up the past few decades. Death was familiar to the people of the 15th century in a way that it isn't in the 21st century. And while the Tudors get a reputation for being bloody, the Plantagenets had a LONG history of being ruthless to get what they wanted. It was a bloody time all around.
I'm quite pleased with the gold star and appreciate another history lesson in your beautiful voice.
Thank you for your very detailed video on such a mystery. I found it informative, I like hearing what historians say about this mystery. I’m a history lover-this and the Tudor era are my favourites. I found out things from you that I never knew about this mystery. I, too hope they can do the tests to identify the remains of the boys, let’s hope they can get permission to get it done, I have read somewhere that the current monarch-King Charles III will allow it, I’ll believe it when I read it’s done. Again, thank you so much for your informative videos (I’ve seen a few of them), keep up the great work as I and of what I’ve read in some of the comments (too many to read) so do a lot of people.
This is the best I have read about this subject. Thank you for clearing up the mystery.
Makes you wonder why Her Majesty wouldn't want this investigation to go on. It won't change anything in the current line of ruling and will put to rest (no pun intended) who those boys are and give them a proper identification.
Great content! And a HUGE thank you for the links and recommendations to further literature and media in the description! Great follow up suggestions and the comments about accuracy are very helpful an much appreciated.
Late catching up with Friday’s Calling. I have always felt unsettled about the young princes. It is true that the heir to the throne was raised from birth to fulfill that role. He was schooled in every way to rule. From etiquette to books to warfare, it was their life. Dangers of court life were not well kept secrets and even a child would pick up rumors, etc. They were surrounded by people who guarded them, checked their food, told them who they could and could not associate with, watched every move they made. The heir was a valuable commodity, but still, I would hope, a child. It is reported that the princes were seen “playing” near the tower. They knew their mother and siblings were in sanctuary. Were they afraid? Did they hope to see them again? Did they know their uncle had been executed? Did they even know the uncle who was plotting their deaths? Sorry to ramble, it is just so profoundly sad and ruthless. Thank you so much, your research brings them to life.
Not at all. What are comments sections for, if not a little ramble to get your thoughts in order and see what other people think :-) I've wondered myself how much they knew about what was happening. When it got to the point they weren't allowed out and the coronation hadn't happened, the elder boy at least must have suspected something was seriously wrong and this chimes with his doctor's comments that Edward V was in daily fear of death. I don't think they knew Richard III much. Edward V spent a little time with him as they travelled to London, but he hadn't grown up around him. I don't even think the boys really knew each other.
A very informative video!
Not that I subscribe to it, but I had always heard the "Buckingham Hypothesis" as being a plot in support of Henry Tudor and not as part of any claim he may have had himself. I still find it unlikely for the reasons you have given, but it is a seductive theory for anyone trying to exonerate Richard.
In any event, one only has to look at the career of Brackenbury, the Constable of the Tower, who received many honours after 1483, acquiring an income greater than many barons. If the princes had been killed or gone missing on his watch without Richard's knowledge, he would hardly be rewarded for it. That is the most compelling evidence of all, in my opinion.
I saved you for my day off . I can listen to this darling all day and her great videos .. great research on history again. Thank you . Greetings from California 🌸😊
Thanks for watching and greetings from the other side of the pond :-)
This is such a huge long lasting mystery that would be so great to have DNA analysis completed to finally solve it!
Excellent video! Tragic, but hey that’s history!!
38:36 Richard III was said to have been moved as well or even thrown into the river but ended up being dug up in the original location.
THANK YOU! Every time I hear the debate about who had KING Edward V and Prince Richard murdered it irritates me. They were being held in the most secure prison in the world at the time by their uncle who usurped the regency from Edward. Considering the threat they posed to Richard he would have had them securely locked down with ZERO chance of any one else getting to them. It’s a case of means, motive and opportunity and ONLY Richard had all three. This is a case of historians and novelists putting forth rumors as possible realities to make the subject more titillating and/or interesting. The problem is most people see fictional movies from fictitious books based on actual historical figures and believe that this is an historically accurate portrayal of events; Phillippa Gregory’s novels particularly. The storyline that I found even more absurd and revolting is that the teenage Elizabeth of York was madly in love with the adult uncle who killed her brothers and she traveled to the field of battle to give herself to him the night before the Battle of Bosworth. CREEPY! The only scenario from one of Gregory’s books I find more absurd is Mary Boleyn giving Henry VIII a piece of her mind in a bid to save her sister’s life. Neither Mary or Henry were even there when Anne Boleyn was executed and if they were and Mary was able to get an audience with Henry she would have been next in line for execution. The soap opera version of historical events can be entertaining, but like daytime dramas there’s very little about them that resemble real people’s lives. We don’t have evil twins who will show up at the perfect time to vex us just as we finally find happiness and our children don’t age in dog years! There is one thing I do believe is that Catherine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor consummated their marriage. Arthur died young after becoming sick with one of many plagues that killed young healthy people in Medieval Europe he wasn’t sickly his entire life, he was raised to do his duty as the Prince of Wales, which was principally to be fruitful and multiply, and he was a teenager. It was convenient for Henry VII to keep Catherine around so he could keep her dowery, so he went along with her implausible version of events. The teenage Henry VIII was enamored with and believed what he WANTED to believe like we humans often do, until we don’t. Ms. Gregory doesn’t try to pass her books off as historically accurate unlike the numerous wildly inaccurate so called “historical videos” on TH-cam and frequently the inaccuracies can be looked up in ten seconds on Wikipedia. As a fan of history this pisses me off because it’s so easy to get the accurate information, and these people ARE passing their work off as historical facts.
Kathleen, I couldn't have put it better myself. :-) We are of one mind on the problems of historical fiction and the lunacy of some of Gregory's plot lines.
All Tudors being what / who they were (utterly ruthless), the possibility exists the boys still lived after the Battle of Bosworth. And that it was newly crowned Henry VII Tudor who had the boys executed in the Tower. After all, he couldn't exactly let them live, could he? His own claim to the throne was far inferior to theirs...
oak699 I have come to that conclusion also. Henry was the usurper. His claim to the throne was a lot more flimsy than Richard's.
The boys were last seen well before Tudor invaded. In fact it was Richard not been able to produce the boys & their “disappearance” believed to be down to him having them killed, that made Yorkist (loyal to Edward IV) & Lancastrian ally against him & back Henry Tudor.
I think you’re referring to Edward IV & not William the bastard who was actually William the conqueror & he was illegitimate.
I don’t believe Edward IV was illegitimate. There’s really nothing to back it up except words of a would be usurper. Richard of York & cecily Neville lost a son before Edward, so they probably baptised him quickly cos they believed back then babies didn’t get into heaven unless they were baptised. George’s baptism was more grand than Edwards. It was also more grand than Edmunds or Elizabeth’s baptism (their 2nd & 3rd child) Edmund died in his teenage yrs. its an absolute desperate stretch regarding Edward iv’s legitimacy. George of Clarence was dead if Edward IV was illegitimate it made….. huh guess who… the most senior male royal. Step in Richard to usurp the crown.
Tudor killing the boys is ridiculous. They were under the complete control & responsibility of their uncle Richard. It’s far more likely, sir Brackenbury, the constable of the tower allowed Richards henchman in (whoever they were) then boom, there goes Richards biggest rivals.
Yes, I have always thought along these lines. Henry V11s Mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort had a hand in some of this as well.
you have good theory , but the two princes disappeared before Richard III coronation. and Richard did not honored his brothers last wishes and will at all by stealing the crown to himself.
However, Henrys claim to the throne through his mother was convenient, but ultimately irrelevant, as thats not the grounds for his claim to the throne. He took the throne by conquest, making his bloodline irrelevant. Likewise he didnt have to marry Elizabeth to strengthen his claim to the throne, but it was a politically expedient way to finally end the War of the Roses by uniting the 2 bloodlines.
If Henry was the culprit, it would be to tie up loose ends, to avoid having other claimants to the throne (especially children who could be used as pawns by others), just as Elizabeth's children, had she married elsewhere, could be become a problem. But it would not have to do with them having a stronger claim to the throne. He took the throne by conquest, thats as strong a claim as any king could have, especially back then. Indeed, thats how Edward IV, the boys' father, ended up on the throne.
But there can be made arguments for and against Henry as the culprit, just as there can be made arguments for and against Richard as the culprit. Honestly, it feels as if 99.9% of ppl out there just assume, that the boys were murdered, and then go looking for a murderer. They may just as easily have died to disease, as many did at that time, including royals and nobles, and indeed, around the time they disappeared, the "sweating sickness" was running through London.
I have always felt, that when u have no evidence to the contrary, the most likely explanation is probably it. Which would be disease, as there is zero factual evidence against Henry or Richard or even for the boys having been murdered at all, only speculation and claims and rumors made by ppl with an interest in discrediting the ppl, they accuse, often made decades or even centuries later. Including Shakespeare.
I tend to believe, that the boys died in the "sweating sickness" epidemic that summer, and that it was problematic for Richard to admit it and better in his optics to just let them disappear. And as their mother reconciled with Richard and join him at court with her daughters, apparently on a friendly footing, that could mean, that she knew the fate of her sons and didnt blame Richard for it. But again, thats only speculation, as there is no factual evidence 1 way or another, but imo the most probably and logical explanation.
Exploring this channel is like crawling around under a Christmas tree discovering these presents are all for MEEEEE🤩🤗🥳.... and everyone else of course.. but they are also for MEEEEE🤩😍🥳😁
Thank you for the obviously time consuming & EXCELLENT work you do, leading us through the often interconnected (and at times confusing🤔) historical lives & deaths, actions & reactions, bright adventures as well as shady events and the consequences there of.
Greetings from Denmark🇩🇰
I believe you are most likely correct. Back story: Richard despised the Woodvilles and wanted to get rid of anyone with Woodville blood. Allowing Edward V to reign would have meant yet more hangers-on, and Edward was still underage. So Richard has both boys put into the Tower and discretely has them killed by the jailer while he's on progress. As for the bones, barring any other reports of children of the same age dying in that Tower, and the fact that the description of their burial matches where they were found, seems to indicate that those are the boys.
Very well done. Whatever happened to the princes, I hope it was quick
Next year, for Halloween, could you do like a "Horrible Histories" type of thing? Where you talk about really horrible things in history? That would be so cool. Or could you do a series on the Romanovs (just in general, not for Halloween)? I feel selfish asking, but I would LOVE it and I LOVE your videos and I figure it can't hurt to ask any. Someone asked for this video, and it's the second best thing that happened to me today (the first was All Too Well, the Short Film, so I think that's super high praise! Or, at least, that's how I mean it!) I love your videos. Please keep up the amazing work
Thanks Carla. Yes, the icky things in history is a good idea for Halloween next year. On the Romanovs, I already have a video on what happened to the family in 1917/18 if you're interested and Catherine the Great is on my to-do list :-)
@@HistoryCalling Oh my gosh yes! I will go find it!! I'm a recently-ish new subscriber and I've been loving ALL of your videos and I've been trying to watch as many as I can in my spare time. I loved the Wives of Henry VIII series! I feel so often Anne Boleyn is vilified unfairly, and I loved that you were open and honest about that. I can't wait to see your Catherine the Great video and I'll look for those Romanov videos now! Thank you :)
Ah yes halloween is here this next year
Most thorough!
This is a mystery I tried to sort out years ago but came to the same conclusion. One ( well at least I } would think there were so many people in the household, SOME insider would spill the beans.. but history seems to have missed that opportunity . It was a little long but how could you have made it shorter and still due justice to the subject.? I suspect the remains are of the boys, but DNA can be surprising. Thanks. I liked this episode.
Yes, it does make you wonder if the stories about Tyrell doing it (or assisting) were true and there was greater evidence of his involvement at the time, which has now been lost to history.
@@HistoryCalling Spill please,my research has pointed to the suggestion Tyrrell was set up.
Most excellent job on this!! You are absolutely incredible and thorough with your work. Its appreciated!! Your channel is the best in my opinion 😊
BEST VIDEO TO DATE! I can see how the task of researching this mystery could be such a drain; I'm glad you stuck with it. Tons of detail with a cast of characters I had trouble keeping track of. I was unaware of Thomas More's account and Tyrell was unknown to me. I would love to see the bones subjected to scientific analysis; it may happen someday, but won't hold my breath. Richard was not the deformed embodiment of evil depicted by Shakespeare, of course, but he does seem to have been ruthless enough to be the agent of death to these boys. Thank you again! Be well and stay safe.
Thank you. I was unaware of Tyrell as well, but it made it all the more interesting to research. I'm not holding my breath about the bones either. I have to wonder how much of them is even left.
Thomas More was of that wretched bishop's house & everything he wrote was heresay.Pity Richard had too much respect for men of the cloth.Morton was as vile as the Stanleys.I think Tyrell was a scapegoat.
@@susanmccormick6022 he also lost his head cos he wouldn’t appease Henry viii and recognise him as the head of the Church of England. He’s known as a man of conviction. Idk what it matters as Ricardians shun 1st hand accounts, without exception anyway. “Tudor propaganda” is an ironic term considering Richard iii has a whole society white washing history. So basically Tudor propaganda is any inconvenient research which shows Richard iii in a poor light. What about Mancini or the 2nd continuation of the croyland chronicles. They were wrote pre Tudor so how do Ricardians explain what they say?
Wow, you did a great job. I made it to the end. The story of the two boys has always intrigued me. Such a sad faith. Appreciating your hard work; thank you 😊
Thank you so much! :-)
If several child skeletons have been found in the tower, it would be of interest to know when they were discovered and where, as well as what was the most likely explanation for each find. There are various mysteries in past history what fascinate us, and this is certainly one of them.
It's SO frustrating, as these events occured in the ever growing past....death takes more and more of the details into her embrace and are forgotten to time.
Who were all these children and what were all of their stories. We will never know.
They were found in the tower
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Well done on cramming all that into just 45mins! This subject has always fascinated me. As you say, the most likely killer is Richard but I've always had my doubts because he was such a competent ruler in the North and very well loved by the people there. It seems so out of character for him to have suddenly turned into a monster. I read something a while ago which suggested that Edward V was very sickly and was often visited by the doctor whilst in the Tower (Dr Argentine?) and that he may have actually died of natural causes...which would have been so embarrassing for Gloucester that he had to revert to Plan B and cover things up. We'll never know. Thanks for an interesting video!
Yes, I read that theory too and it's certainly possible, but of course then we still have to ask 'what happened to Richard of Shrewsbury'. Glad you liked the video :-)
@@HistoryCalling Ah, that'll be your next project......Perkin Warbeck! He even managed to fool his aunt Margaret, Duchess of Bergundy, who backed him. Very odd!
Oh I've already covered most of his story in my video on the life of Henry VII, part 2, if you're interested in it.
I have some difficulty believing that Richard III did this as well. He had a good reputation and long history of being loyal to his older brother in very trying circumstances, and he seems to have been well-regarded and a good and competent administrator for so much of his life.
I also think that Richard III was in a very tight spot. Very tight indeed. He was caught between two very powerful factions.
The first, very exclusive, faction was that of Elizabeth Woodville and her family, who during the reign of Edward IV gained incredible amounts of power, influence, and land. They were very ambitious and very good at seizing opportunity, and there were many of them. They'd taken an incredible amount of titles and lands and many of the best and most eligible marriages for themselves and their kin. They were a close-knit clan, probably at least in large part due to closing ranks in the face of negative reaction to Elizabeth's marriage with Edwards, and it didn't look like anyone outside of it was going to get a shot at anything if someone didn't take them down a peg or two. If you didn't or couldn't join them, what then?
The second faction was that of the Woodvilles' opponents. They hadn't liked Elizabeth, who was born into the minor nobility and must have seemed nothing more than an opportunistic social climber, from the first. Her family's rise to power incurred a lot of fear and resentment. Others had little hope of favor, influence, fortune, and getting what they wanted while the Woodvilles ruled England as Edward IV very blatantly let them do. And outsiders to this clan had little hope of being able to join the ruling clique. Further, there was a natural rivalry between the Woodvilles and other powerful landholders. That's precisely why Warwick the Kingmaker, one of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in the realm, turned coat and launched a rebellion against Edward IV. It was clear, from the fact that Edward had made a mockery of Warwick's efforts to secure a prestigious marriage for him in France and entered into at least one secret treaty behind Warwick's back, that Warwick's star was falling and his influence with Edward would not likely be enough to preserve what he had and protect his interests, much less be a player in decision-making.
Elizabeth and the Woodvilles had little reason to love Richard or his wife, Anne, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker. Anne's father and his faction had actually rebelled against Edward IV out of rivalry with the Woodvilles, and Richard (by marrying Anne and so becoming the heir of all Warwick's property and interests) had become a kind of heir of that rivalry and bone of contention between the old nobility and the Woodvilles.
What I'm surprised the video didn't address was the distinct possibility that Edward IV was illegitimate and no son of Richard of York to begin with. There is certainly evidence to suggest that Edward was conceived when his mother was some distance away from the senior Richard. Perhaps Richard III never took that--or the allegations that Edward had been married prior to marrying Elizabeth Woodville--seriously in his earlier life. But when Richard found out that Edward had died and Elizabeth hadn't notified him, he knew two things. First, she was going to challenge him to take charge of everything and she fully intended to freeze him out. And she couldn't safely freeze him out without destroying him as an actual or even just potential rival. (The same problem Warwick faced.) All the Woodvilles would fall in line behind her, and they were formidable. Second, Edward had appointed him Protector during the boys' minority, and if Richard were going to enforce Edward's wishes (and long tradition), he would have to move fast.
But--and here's the crux of the problem--the boys were not too far from their majority, and they had been raised by their mother and by the Woodvilles. They would take the side of their mother and uncles, and they were very probably poisoned against him. He couldn't hope to counteract their influence on the young princes. Thus, Richard had a tiger by the tail. If he didn't meekly bow to Elizabeth and the Woodvilles and challenged her to serve as Protector of the Realm--and maybe even if he just minded his own business--he'd sooner or later come into conflict with the young princes as they grew up. They'd become more and more able to assert themselves, and he and his son would be seen as liabilities to them. And after decades of conflict and treachery in different branches of the family and even in the same branches of the family, he was all too aware of what happened to people who were considered liabilities to those in power in those times.
So I see it as plausible that Richard (once he made that fateful decision to try to intercept the young Edward on his way to London) would latch onto any reason to discount the claim of his brother and nephews to the throne. Richard could be very sure that he was the son of Richard of York and that there was no question of his legitimacy or the legitimacy of his son. Surely the throne should go to legitimate claimants and not to illegitimate claimants. So he would only be doing the appropriate thing to take the throne himself. It wasn't much of a step, considering the circumstances, between asserting his right to serve as Protector and realizing that the boys were too much of a liability for him and to then take the step of justifying their murder--whether he ordered it himself or opened the way for someone else.
I agree with you. The doubt in my mind is that I feel Richard gained nothing, as the boys had been declared illegitimate. Therefore, he was at that time safely enconsed on the throne. I do not see him as the murderer of his nephews, although the evidence such as it is, points directly to him.
Your voice is beautiful and your videos are so informative, I adore how you give your own opinion at the end and the facts. Please don't stop this!
When I'm on a 14hr night shift as a Psych nurse, I listen to your videos on low and your voice rocks me to sleep! (In a good way) thank you. X
We may never know what happened to them, but perhaps we may come to know when it happened; If the records of the tower are extant, the consumption records should give an indication of when they ceased to be fed and clothed there, thereby providing a possible date for their demise or removal from the tower...
That's a fascinating idea. I don't think such records exist sadly, as I'm sure someone would have used them by now to try to establish a more secure timeline. You never know though. Sometimes things like this show up in archives, having been lost for centuries.
@@HistoryCalling I seem to recall some mention of them in a documentary about the Tower, regarding some prisoners in Tudor times. Perhaps someone should take the trouble to investigate...
wonnnderful presentation! but verging on ASMR 😴 your voice & accent are so lovely.
such a sad story. Ive never heard the account that the young king sensed his death was near 😥
Tragic for the Yorkists as you would think with the 3 sons of York their house would endure. As it turned out they destroyed their own line and allowed Henry Tudor, who was from an illegitimate line, to succeed to the throne in the person of Henry Tudor King Henry Vii
Exactly. Though he couldn't have known it at the time, all Henry had to do was sit back and wait for the Yorks to almost completely wipe themselves out, then mop up what was left. If you've ever watched Game of Thrones, I think the comparisons between Henry and Daenerys are very clear on that point.
Henry V11 became king because he won a battle with Richard 111, who was killed on the battlefield.
Many thanks for this, very interesting. I also love your voice!
I always thought it was Richard - the other option is Henry VII but it would mean Richard had some scruple about murdering friends and family - Clarence Hastings Buckingham and a few others I think did not get very fair trials from Richard - his nephews were such an obvious threat he would have to eliminate them
Yes, I think they were a definite threat too. You see some people saying 'Oh he'd had them declared illegitimate, so they were no threat to him and he had no motive to kill them', but I think that's a very naïve way to look at the situation. They would absolutely have been figureheads for those wanting to overthrow him and he had the greatest motive of all to do them harm.
@@HistoryCalling -they were a problem for Henry Tudor even - it was Perkin Warbeck I think who was trained to pretend he was the young duke of York and wound up in Henry VII's kitchen eventually - two young male heirs while Richard is basically usurping - no chance in the world Richard would let them live - Shakespeare's details of his treachery may be a little exaggerated but he had a hunch back when found to the Bard's credit - Shakespeare's take on him is pretty accurate
@@FandersonUfo Actually, Lambert Simnel was the pretender who wound up in Henry VII's kitchen. Perkin Warbeck, another pretender, was thrown into the Tower and eventually executed.
@@jn8ive60 - thank you Ms. Robinson - Googling him right now for the finer details - I knew some one wound up cooking for Henry VII
And considering Henry VII's mother and Elizabeth Woodville formed an alliance, it seems very strange that Henry VII or his mother would murder their ally's children. Especially since both sides agreed to a political marriage to cement their alliance.
Great history video I enjoyed it can't wait to see more soon greetings from Canada 😀 your history videos are always enjoyable 😀
This is SUCH an example of how a terrible thing can also be something we are glad happened. I've known this story for many years and have always thought, "How I wish someone had protected them." And then two years ago, we finally got confirmation on parts of the family tree that prove descent from Henry VII & Elizabeth of York. That marriage would undoubtedly not have happened if Edward V had lived. That means I would not exist. Things like this happen throughout history and many untold millions past, present, and future owe their very existence to these evil acts. Mind-bending for sure!
It seems very odd to me that Elizabeth, mother of the princes, didn't sense the danger after Gloucester taking possesion of the Edward postponing his crowning. Instead of following the Gloucesters advise and going to the "sanctuary", she was supposed to take his youngest son and look for asylum elsewhere promptly. If they were safe out of the country, that could have potentially spared Edward's life as well and possibly force Richard to have him crowned, as having him killed wouldn't have mattered if there was Richard the duke of York still available, next in the line.
This was wonderful. I just discovered your channel and look forward to listening to more. Since you mention Philippa Gregory's fictional accounts of the murder of the princes, would you also share your opinion of Josephine Tey's fictional account of the same event in The Daughter of Time? She lays blame for the act squarely on the Tudors. Her account is fiction, too, but it seemed quite plausible. Thanks again for such great work.
How can you stand "listening?"
Well narrated. It just like a long bedtime story. Only not so boring. I mean that nicely. I've only recently came across the channel and its one [1] of my top three[3]. Thank you for the hard work and effort and inviting us who visit here to share with your wonderful finding and conclusions.
It isn’t inconceivable that Buckingham could have instigated it. All he had to do, to stay alive, is frame Richard and threaten to expose him.
It’s not as if evil-intentioned counsellors have never done this kind of thing before - Eadric Streona being the most obvious example, largely responsible for the massacre on English Danes in York and constantly pushing Aethelred to self destruction (not that seems he needed much help with that).
The suppression of Rivers and the Wydville faction was not put into context at all well. The intention had been to do the same as Cersei Lannister - use the heir’s authority to destroy rivals, chief f which was Richard. Either he got them first, or they would have killed him.
Just to clarify, the video is more about what happened to the Princes than what their maternal family planned to do with royal authority. There wasn't space unfortunately to get into that in what was already my longest video to date.
It’s far more conceivable than the man who usurped the throne from his nephews was probably the one who had them murdered. It wouldn’t be the 1st time a medieval king had got rid of rivals to the throne.
The amount of ppl who needed to be executed, humiliated, bastardised & dishonoured for Richard to be innocent beggars belief. It’s Occam’s razor for me cos it’s far less speculative than any other Ricardian theories I’ve heard