I'm pretty sure these were mixed for older audio channels because A few of these uploads are absolutely terrible for newer technology. The backing track often overwhelms the narration
No these documentaries were all made by people other than the uploaders, they've nicked them for content and they overdub a loud audio track to try and avoid a copyright strike.
Indeed. When I watched English programs while in Korea, they would lower the vocal track when using captions. I never knew why. Maybe the rights for them, and consequently here, were purchased at a lower rate for foreign, non-English speaking markets. Maybe the creators would reduce the "less important" vocal track to ensure it was only used in those markets?
@@serendpity3478 oh, I know that that's what I was implying, I'm fairly certain they bought the rights to air it on TH-cam. I've seen a lot of these programs in the '90s and it's been great to watch again however I'm pretty sure they just uploaded the file without doing anything to adjust the volume
This is the first time I can actually say, this was shite due to music. If it is a copyright issue, you are the worst at copying. Tragic really, for what was a promising story.
Looks like an interesting documentary but the music is way too loud. It's a shame but not going to watch it. Maybe it's better to adjust the music volume and upload it again (?)
The music makes it very hard to hear much! But,my theory is that Richard did not murder the princes-he had no reason to since they were already claimed as illegitimate! I think,because he had every reason to eliminate them,the real murderer was Henry Tudor!
Ur entitled to your opinion but that is BS, declaring them illegitimate doesn't eliminate the threat that they could take back the throne. Richard III lived through his brothers reign he knew the consequences of his brother keeping Henry VI alive which resulted in his brother losing his crown and having to win it back. Just as easily his nephews could have retaken the crown and I don't think Richard III wanted to risk that. Plus Richard III had the most to gain by their disappearance bc the fact of the matter was, Henry Tudor wasnt seen as much of a threat, he was a lancasterian descendant through the female line and through a bastard line and him winning the throne was pretty much seen as a miracle. Furthermore Richard III ordered the death of the princes Uncle, Anthony Rivers, and their older half brother Richard Grey, by doing that he destroyed any chance of reconciliation between himself and Woodville family, and diwager Queen Elizabeth Woodville, the mother of the princes. Look I dont know and know one knows for sure who ordered the disappearance of the princes but it could have easily been Richard III and no one can say he had no reason to get rid of his nephews
Right, because no heir that has been declared illegitimate has ever returned to usurp the throne. Nope. That's never happened ever, and it definitely wasn't going to be an issue about 70 years later. No, Richard could rest easy knowing that since they'd been declared illegitimate there was no way, ever, at all, that either of them could be a threat to his reign. However... Maybe just to be REALLY REALLY REALLY sure... Nah. They're illegitimate now, so it's all fine... Or more plausibly, he wasn't an idiot, and as someone that seized power himself, he realized that the surest way to lose said power was to suffer the existence of those with the cause, claim, and motivation to take it from him.
He had them declared illegitimate! That means nothing to most Yorkist supporters. The boys would have always be a thorn in Richard’s side if left alive. They could be used in a revolt against Richard or anyone who didn’t want him on the throne.
ARGH!!!! What is it with Absolute History and Chronicles and their sound? I would much rather hear the very elucidate Tony Robinson create a story, with the facts available, about Richard III and the young boys in the tower?
Who allowed the music to be so foward? Really need to pull this, pull the music back in the audio track and reupload. Big fan of Richard III & Sir Tony, but this isn't watchable.
@@teledan105 You say that like Shakespeare was a historian... He used the exaggerated propaganda stories recorded about Richard for that portrayal. Richard had scoliosis, but it wouldn't have given him a hunchback. At most, it would have made his torso shorter than average and given a bit of unevenness to his shoulders that wouldn't be overt and which would have been very easy to mask with a good tailor-which he almost definitely had as a noble. Physical and mental imperfections were often very played up and greatly exaggerated about people maligned by influential people in centuries past. Scoliosis very rarely results in an actual hunchback. A *lot* of people have scoliosis and, even without corrections, you'd almost never know with the vast majority of them unless they told you.
Richard was always loyal to his brother Edward. But Richard's wife hated Elizabeth Woodville, and she hated Edward. She hated the children as well. Blaming Edward and his Queen for the death of her father And Elizabeth for the death of her sister. Then you have Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother. Her husband Stanley was in charge of those in the tower. And that woman would have killed her own mother if it would have put her son on the Throne of England. And Elizabeth would have gone along with any lie against Richard to regain power once again. Only problem was Margaret Beaufort was not about to share power with anyone. Not even her son's wife. So there are two right there who would have plenty of motive to do away with the two boys. And Stanley himself could have ordered it as well being the Captain of the Tower. And Being Henry Tudor's stepfather it would be to his benefit to do away with Richard. And Thomas Moore was a brown noser from the word go. When the Tudors came into power of course he was going to make them the Heroes and make Richard the bad guy. I wouldn't have trusted that man for any reason. And let us n ot forget about Buckingham, he was related to Richard's family by blood. And he loved power so what better way of getting it is to do away with the boys, then slander Richard and get rid of him as well. Only it didn't work for Richard caught on to his schemes. No Richard didn't murder his nephews those are no more than TUDOR LIES.
Richard was king with absolute power when they vanished so. They were in his care and under his ‘protection’, being kept in one of the safest places in the country. No one other than their uncle would have had the authority to order their deaths. He had the motive, means and plenty of opportunities. Can’t see why people keep trying to obfuscate the obvious. They were in his way a he got rid of them, just as the ordinary people of that time believed.
I have to agree with the other posts - I had a hard time hearing some of the narrative, but didn't want to turn up the volume to have the incidental music blasting. BTW - I once saw a documentary where Richard III's bones were discovered under a car park. They discovered he had scoliosis.
I saw a very interesting documentary in which some historians wanted to prove that, even with the malformed spine which was plainly visible in his remains, Richard III could still ride horses and even joust, as the records claim. Many were skeptical that this was humanly possible and believed it was a myth. Amazingly, they found a young man whose spinal irregularity almost exactly matched Richard's. He had never sat a horse in his life, but even with his significant disability, he was very game to try. He actually learned, not only to ride very ably, but to joust! It was amazing, not just for this huge accomplishment but for how eager the young man was to put himself out there both mentally and physically to meet this challenge.
@@ferociousgumby The scoliosis was likely not mentioned by contemporary accounts because it could be concealed with clothes, so it probably wasn't big enough to be anything to write home about. I'll tip my hat to Richard for his tenacity in overcoming the handicap.
change the batteries, or turn up the vol on your hearing device, cause you can hear it pretty good. Yea the music is a little louder, but the gist comes across clearly
...this was made before the discovery of the skeleton of Richard III. The "expert in medieval art" (at 4:30) was certain that he wasn't a hunchback, and that the hump in his portrait was painted in at a later date. Shows how little these so called experts know. Very interesting to be able to cross examine. How totally wrong she was.
@Goodness Graces a "deformaty" but not a hunchback.....so what would u call that huge curve in his spine " minor scoliosis u can't even tell ! " yea ok that shit was BADD he walked funny and everything u should watch that show again bro IF U watched it at all
@Goodness Graces It was minor enough that clothes could conceal it without too much difficulty. But people who like to think that Shakespeare was more accurate than he thought (never mind the fact that the guy wasn't exactly living in an era of free speech) ignore that.
@@michaelpaiva9924 Kt was not "minor scoliosis," though. It would have been quite severe - enough that one shoulder would have been noticeably higher than the other. Hunchback? Who knows? But an obvious deformity it would have been.
Children are in your care. Children turn up missing. You've got some hard questions to answer. Even if you're king. Especially if you're king. They should have left him under that parking lot.
The fact that Henry VII had the princes declared legitimate once he was secure on the throne, so he could marry Elizabeth of York, and if he made this declaration, then he must have been certain that the 2 princes were definitely dead, otherwise if he was unsure, that could have gone very badly if they popped up somewhere. So Henry VII had a very good reason to have them killed, after all if he got rid of Richard, the 2 princes would or could have easily been put back on the throne. They would always have been a problem to any Tudor reign whilst they were still alive.
I agree the background music overwhelms the narrative. I'm hearing impaired, & closed captioning was the only reason I could get through it. Otherwise great production!
I had to turn on CC because the background music and sounds made it extremely difficult to hear the commentator but it didn’t help as I had to turn down the tv volume but couldn’t hear the narrator. FIX IT AND RELOAD, then I’ll watch it.
Even though Margaret Beaufort had far more reason to want the princes in the tower dead (so her son would be in position to take the throne) she is only given a cursory mention as possible conspirator or mastermind of their deaths. Perhaps because she was a woman, historians are pretty quick to discount her, citing her overt regliosity, however, she was absolutely certain God wanted her son on the throne, and had engineered the marriage of Elizabeth of York with her arch enemy Elizabeth Woodville who she loathed above all others as she was "common." This marriage contract was known to Richard III. Her third husband Stanley was Constable of the Tower, but the claim is not until after Oct., when the boys disappeared months before. By this point in Beaufort's life, she would have done anything to put her Henry on the throne, and conspiring to "make them disappear" would certainly have had her support, a fact known to everyone.
Nah Only Why would Richard have them bastardized? He planned that. Margaret NEEDED them to stay legitimized so her son would have a more stable connection to claim the throne. Remember Elizabeth of York was still Edward the 4th’s(a rightful king) daughter. He wouldn’t have lasted as king without her by his side. After the death of Edward IV and the presumed disappearance and death of both princes Edwards OWN men turned to Henry VII. Let’s not forget that No one but Richard and his closest advisor and guards had access to the high security prison in that Tower. Also Stanley was made constable well after the princes’ last sighting which seem that they were already gone at that point (also don’t think Richard trusted him enough given the fact that he KNEW at this point Margaret wanted her son on the throne instead of him). Richard had ALL the motive. He declares them bastards and claims himself king….there are whispers about the vine that there is a plan to end his reign and seat the rightful kings because he knows his proclamation of claiming them illegitimate is hearsay at best, he takes them out before they can be broken out. He learned a big lesson in the trials of his brother’s reign. He chooses to take the little king and his prince brother out before can come to that. And let’s not assume he didn’t know anything about the pre-contracted agreement for Henry VII to marry the eldest sister of the two princes. If anything I think Stanley…like many others were growing sus about the whereabouts of the princes. You know their mom had to have been sending her own people to investigate. When they got not a sign or an inkling on the princes that was when everything was set to go to take that throne. Phillips Gregory got people fantasizing LOL
About 20 yr ago a man came forth claming that he is the rightful hier to the Thrown and that after QE2 death is is going to claim the Thrown for himself ., so I suppose it depends on how long QE2 lives , can she out live this Contender or if he is to old to make a legimett clam . There is a man liveing in Australia who claims to be the next hier apparent in Williams place also .He claims to be Charles 1st born and is the son of Camilla , however being illigetiamate disqualifies him as. having a right. to the thrown .. So intrigue is rife in the Royal Family even to this very day . DML
I always thought that little girl who found Excalibur in a lake in Wales was supposed to be the queen. Aren't watery tarts throwing swords supposed to be the basis of government here?
A pregnancy could safely be completed anywhere between 7-9 months plus. In medieval times often later than 9 months. This record means nothing. Also there have been other records found to show that York indeed met his wife once or twice that would fit in with the time period. The less lavish christening could simply be that indeed the child was premature or unwell and they wanted to christen him swiftly. They wouldn’t want to advertise what would be perceived as a weakness. Also what we know of Cecile Neville, his mother, would indicate that her piety and steadfastness would never allow for an affair, and also how would she have been able to get away with it when always attended? This line of reasoning is very disappointing as it doesn’t fit the evidence as well as logic and it seems to be a lame attempt at creating sensationalism
The scoliosis was confirmed but no hunchback nor withered arms and legs were found. And with the demonstration of a young man with a similar degree of scoliosis and no horseback history proved Richard could be very agile while wearing his armor and on horseback. Shakespeare was vivid in his defamation of the Tudors' target. Elizabeth Tudor could say, Off with his head had he written the truth about Henry Vll's family debauchery. Tudors proved to be treacherous.
Wow! Talk about a surprise ending! I had difficulty with the audio on the video. Tony's narration was often drowned-out by the background music, making subtitles a necessity. Unfortunately, TH-cam's captioning leaves something to be desired.
Some historians believe that Hastings was, indeed, involved in a conspiracy, and one, Clements R. Markham, believes he was executed a week after the meeting.. The brutal reign of Richard II, who was crowned at age 10, while not fresh in people's memory, would still have been common knowledge. It is reasonable to suppose that no one wanted to risk a repeat of that if another minor took the throne. Installing Richard as regent makes perfect sense in such a case. This documentary completely ignores Titlulus Regius, an act passed by Parliament. Obviously, Parliament accepted Bishop Stillington's evidence of the illegitimacy of the princes and their sister, Elizabeth, and named Richard the rightful king. After Henry Tudor took the throne, he wanted to marry Elizabeth, but couldn't marry a bastard. so he had Titulus Regius repealed *unread*. However, this also restored the boys' claim to the throne, and he couldn't have that. If anyone had real need to get rid of the boys, it was Henry, who was a bastard son of a bastard son himself.
Shame the background music was so loud. The distance between Rouen and Pontoise is barely 60 miles. Perhaps Richard duke of York rode back from time to time to visit his wife. Unlikely, but still possible. True that Edward was very tall and York and Gloucester were a lot smaller, but still... also was George Duke of Clarence legitimate? In which case his son Edward earl of Warwick would have been the heir, or was he barred from ever being able claim the throne because of his father's treason? I think we shall never know for sure what happened, but fascinating video, thanks.
Clarence's descendants were attainted, which means they have no claim on the throne. By Richard. But he didn't kill them and he looked after them. So why kill one brother's kids but not the others?
Wow. I shut everything off on my phone thinking I had something open with music running. It’s this stream and it overwhelms the narration A shame. I can’t finish this
NOOOO. Tony! Please read all of John Ashdown Hill's books. Richard NEVER called his BROTHER a bastard. His claim to the throne in Titulus Regius was based on his assertion that his brother's marriage was bigamous and that his SONS were therefore bastards. A really egregious historical error on your part. The accusation that Edward IV was a bastard was an old calumny. Cecilly's pregnancy lasted 42 weeks which is within the normal range for a normal gestation. Scandal closed. Count the weeks. I did. Did you? I did some research. Did YOU?
This channel has a problem with the soundtrack for most of its videos. Dialogue levels are too low while background music tracks are too loud. Whoever is uploading these clips is doing a lousy job.
Y’all can do math but perhaps y’all should study birth a bit more… that’s still within the realm of being a legitimate heir to York. There is a ton of logical explanations for that birth.
I’ve always been fascinated by the story of the boys in the tower, and was so excited when I found this video. Unfortunately, the sound is terrible, so I won’t be watching it. Very disappointing.
I think that Richard III was a loyal King. I think that Richard was brave, given how he died. He died like a King. I think that he honoured his duties to his brother and The Princes. I think that history has done Richard III a great, great disservice. I don't think that Richard III either murdered The Princes, or had them murdered. If I am right, then those two bodies that were discovered won't have any common or Kingly ancestry inside of them at all. I think that Richard III did a "Luke Skywalker" and "Princess Leia" on the two Princes. As soon as Richard III got wind of an invasion, Richard III moved the princes, in secret, to France, where they were split up, raised and educated, before returning to England decades later. I think that the Princes were replaced with two unrelated lookalikes, who were later murdered, and then buried in the tower. Richard III allowed the rumours to spread, because he wanted people to believe that the Princes were dead. He wanted the rumours to spread so that Henry VII would hear the news. The stand-in's were murdered, so that Henry VII wouldn't look for the Princes if he was victorious at Bosworth Field and crowned King, which he was. If Henry thought that the Princes were dead, then why bother looking for them? It is unlikely that Henry VII knew what the princes looked like, so he would believe that the two stand-in's were The Princes. Furthermore, if the bodies were buried somewhere in the tower, probably in a state of decomposition, then Henry VII couldn't formally identify them later on, if the bodies were discovered. Henry VII's throne was, as far as he was concerned, secure. From Richard III perspective, the Plantagenet line, and their claim to the throne survived, even if he died in battle. However, if Richard III survived the invasion, Richard III knew where the Princes were, so they could just be recalled at the right time, to resume their position in the Royal line of succession. Later on in life, the Princes returned to the UK. One Prince died in the battle of Stoke Field (1487). The other prince returned to face Henry VII under the name 'Perkin Warbeck', who was hanged as if he was part of the social elite, instead of being hung, drawn and quartered as a traitor, which was the usual way of executing traitors in those times. That is my theory anyway. Nothing will be proven, unless the two bodies are, at some point, scientifically examined.
Have you historians ever thought about Margaret Bamford, being the killer of the princes in the tower as her husband was guardian to the two Princes, so he, but Margaret Beaufort would have the opportunity
The ambient noise like the vehicle engines and the music was so overwhelming that even with the captions on I could barely follow the story. Whoever edited this otherwise very interesting video needs a little more education or their hearing checked. The foley guy should go back to school too.
Strange logic - treating a picture of Richard III, painted when he was the king, as authentic evidence of his lacking deformity ignores the questions of power and propaganda.
the line was never straight - Henry Tudor won the crown by right of conquest just as William the conqueror did before him. At the point he is coronated and has support of the people he becomes the rightful king and the line changes. Of cause when one wants to put a bend in a royal line it is generally a good idea to erase the line that runs straight - which is covered in explaining the death of the princes and if Mary had of just wiped out Elizabeth when she had the chance then history would have gone in a very different direction. There is societies out there that follow the jacobite line as the "true" line. But whatever could have been what only matters in the line of succession is what was and is.
If Edward really was illegitimate, why would his father claim him as his? Surely as soon as Edward was born, his father wouldn’t have claimed him. Calculating his birth date to the day like that is not very accurate either. Simple example - my mother was told I am supposed to be born between May 1-st and 3-rd based on the day they thought I was conceived. I was born 2 weeks early! Babies born days before their due date are not “small or sickly” so if Edward was born early, he wouldn’t have been small or sickly if he was born still around the 40-th week. The final few minutes of the video seem to be trying to sensationalise the story, make it a bit more saucy.
To understand who killed two young princes is to look at the cause and circumstances of Edward death, was it suspicious? If it was who was closest to Edward could it be the very man he trusted and was loyal to him and then turned against him. If he did turn against him why were there others involved and what was he promised. Did Richard suspect him and if he did then what action did Richard take. Who benefited out of death of princes was it orchestrated to make Richard villain. No one will know the answers you cannot go back into time it was vey long time ago. There will always be questions but no definite answers.
I think one of the things happened to those boys: 1. They died of disease. This is probably the most likely, as most people did die of infectious disease, back then. 2. They died of an accident, possibly while trying to escape. They were Plantagenets, and were already training to be fighters. 3. They were killed by someone who hoped to please the king, as in the case of Beckett. In any case, once they were gone, poor Richard was sure to get the blame.
The background music overwhelmed the narrative. Irksome above the interesting story.
Older recording also. Why don’t they put the original date this aired???
They're obviously doing it to avoid copyright because they're stealing the content is my guess
The sound over the speakers is annoying. I turned on the closed captioning cc
Couldn't watch because it was too annoying.
Yes the music did seem to overpower the story.
Background music is way too loud. Sound person should spend a little time in the Tower.
hahahah
😂😂😂😂 agreed
Agreed 🤣!!!
I’m sure this is a fascinating doco, however the music is way too loud and you could hardly hear what Tony is saying. Shame really.
Ok, im glad im not the only one who's having trouble hearing tony , the music is drowning out his voice.
@@autumnmoon5014 I quickly put on stereo headphones and was able to hear the narration quite well, afterwards.
I'm pretty sure these were mixed for older audio channels because A few of these uploads are absolutely terrible for newer technology. The backing track often overwhelms the narration
No these documentaries were all made by people other than the uploaders, they've nicked them for content and they overdub a loud audio track to try and avoid a copyright strike.
Indeed. When I watched English programs while in Korea, they would lower the vocal track when using captions. I never knew why. Maybe the rights for them, and consequently here, were purchased at a lower rate for foreign, non-English speaking markets. Maybe the creators would reduce the "less important" vocal track to ensure it was only used in those markets?
@@serendpity3478 oh, I know that that's what I was implying, I'm fairly certain they bought the rights to air it on TH-cam. I've seen a lot of these programs in the '90s and it's been great to watch again however I'm pretty sure they just uploaded the file without doing anything to adjust the volume
This is the first time I can actually say, this was shite due to music. If it is a copyright issue, you are the worst at copying.
Tragic really, for what was a promising story.
Can't even hear the narrator due to the insanely loud background music!
Looks like an interesting documentary but the music is way too loud. It's a shame but not going to watch it. Maybe it's better to adjust the music volume and upload it again (?)
I agree.
Sounds like a theres movie playing at the same time over it
Please fix the sound! Would be an extremely interesting listen if I were able!
He was killed by a Welshman. Not the French. That man was Rhys ap Thomas, a Welsh lord, master of Carew Castle in Pembrokeshire.
Quite right.!!!!!
The music makes it very hard to hear much!
But,my theory is that Richard did not murder the princes-he had no reason to since they were already claimed as illegitimate!
I think,because he had every reason to eliminate them,the real murderer was Henry Tudor!
Ur entitled to your opinion but that is BS, declaring them illegitimate doesn't eliminate the threat that they could take back the throne. Richard III lived through his brothers reign he knew the consequences of his brother keeping Henry VI alive which resulted in his brother losing his crown and having to win it back. Just as easily his nephews could have retaken the crown and I don't think Richard III wanted to risk that. Plus Richard III had the most to gain by their disappearance bc the fact of the matter was, Henry Tudor wasnt seen as much of a threat, he was a lancasterian descendant through the female line and through a bastard line and him winning the throne was pretty much seen as a miracle. Furthermore Richard III ordered the death of the princes Uncle, Anthony Rivers, and their older half brother Richard Grey, by doing that he destroyed any chance of reconciliation between himself and Woodville family, and diwager Queen Elizabeth Woodville, the mother of the princes. Look I dont know and know one knows for sure who ordered the disappearance of the princes but it could have easily been Richard III and no one can say he had no reason to get rid of his nephews
Right, because no heir that has been declared illegitimate has ever returned to usurp the throne. Nope. That's never happened ever, and it definitely wasn't going to be an issue about 70 years later. No, Richard could rest easy knowing that since they'd been declared illegitimate there was no way, ever, at all, that either of them could be a threat to his reign.
However... Maybe just to be REALLY REALLY REALLY sure... Nah. They're illegitimate now, so it's all fine...
Or more plausibly, he wasn't an idiot, and as someone that seized power himself, he realized that the surest way to lose said power was to suffer the existence of those with the cause, claim, and motivation to take it from him.
He had them declared illegitimate! That means nothing to most Yorkist supporters. The boys would have always be a thorn in Richard’s side if left alive. They could be used in a revolt against Richard or anyone who didn’t want him on the throne.
I secondi it. Hwnry's wife was a Lancaster and must have had many a reason ti murder the two princes...
ARGH!!!! What is it with Absolute History and Chronicles and their sound? I would much rather hear the very elucidate Tony Robinson create a story, with the facts available, about Richard III and the young boys in the tower?
Who allowed the music to be so foward? Really need to pull this, pull the music back in the audio track and reupload. Big fan of Richard III & Sir Tony, but this isn't watchable.
When his skeleton was found didn't it show evidence of scoliosis?
Yes it did.
Yes, but no withered arm
@@infjintegrityvsnarcissism7295 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤔🤫🧐😤😵
Yes. Yes, as Shakespeare wrote, he was a bunchback.
@@teledan105 You say that like Shakespeare was a historian... He used the exaggerated propaganda stories recorded about Richard for that portrayal. Richard had scoliosis, but it wouldn't have given him a hunchback. At most, it would have made his torso shorter than average and given a bit of unevenness to his shoulders that wouldn't be overt and which would have been very easy to mask with a good tailor-which he almost definitely had as a noble.
Physical and mental imperfections were often very played up and greatly exaggerated about people maligned by influential people in centuries past.
Scoliosis very rarely results in an actual hunchback. A *lot* of people have scoliosis and, even without corrections, you'd almost never know with the vast majority of them unless they told you.
Richard was always loyal to his brother Edward. But Richard's wife hated Elizabeth Woodville, and she hated Edward. She hated the children as well. Blaming Edward and his Queen for the death of her father And Elizabeth for the death of her sister. Then you have Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother. Her husband Stanley was in charge of those in the tower. And that woman would have killed her own mother if it would have put her son on the Throne of England. And Elizabeth would have gone along with any lie against Richard to regain power once again. Only problem was Margaret Beaufort was not about to share power with anyone. Not even her son's wife. So there are two right there who would have plenty of motive to do away with the two boys. And Stanley himself could have ordered it as well being the Captain of the Tower. And Being Henry Tudor's stepfather it would be to his benefit to do away with Richard. And Thomas Moore was a brown noser from the word go. When the Tudors came into power of course he was going to make them the Heroes and make Richard the bad guy. I wouldn't have trusted that man for any reason. And let us n ot forget about Buckingham, he was related to Richard's family by blood. And he loved power so what better way of getting it is to do away with the boys, then slander Richard and get rid of him as well. Only it didn't work for Richard caught on to his schemes. No Richard didn't murder his nephews those are no more than TUDOR LIES.
Richard was king with absolute power when they vanished so. They were in his care and under his ‘protection’, being kept in one of the safest places in the country. No one other than their uncle would have had the authority to order their deaths. He had the motive, means and plenty of opportunities. Can’t see why people keep trying to obfuscate the obvious. They were in his way a he got rid of them, just as the ordinary people of that time believed.
I have to agree with the other posts - I had a hard time hearing some of the narrative, but didn't want to turn up the volume to have the incidental music blasting. BTW - I once saw a documentary where Richard III's bones were discovered under a car park. They discovered he had scoliosis.
I saw a very interesting documentary in which some historians wanted to prove that, even with the malformed spine which was plainly visible in his remains, Richard III could still ride horses and even joust, as the records claim. Many were skeptical that this was humanly possible and believed it was a myth. Amazingly, they found a young man whose spinal irregularity almost exactly matched Richard's. He had never sat a horse in his life, but even with his significant disability, he was very game to try. He actually learned, not only to ride very ably, but to joust! It was amazing, not just for this huge accomplishment but for how eager the young man was to put himself out there both mentally and physically to meet this challenge.
@@ferociousgumby The scoliosis was likely not mentioned by contemporary accounts because it could be concealed with clothes, so it probably wasn't big enough to be anything to write home about. I'll tip my hat to Richard for his tenacity in overcoming the handicap.
@@ferociousgumby The young man said that the custom-made armor made it even easier to maneuver while on horseback! All armor was custom-made!
change the batteries, or turn up the vol on your hearing device, cause you can hear it pretty good. Yea the music is a little louder, but the gist comes across clearly
...this was made before the discovery of the skeleton of Richard III. The "expert in medieval art" (at 4:30) was certain that he wasn't a hunchback, and that the hump in his portrait was painted in at a later date. Shows how little these so called experts know. Very interesting to be able to cross examine.
How totally wrong she was.
Right I was thinking the same thing! This had to be made before the discovery and geez what a non expert that old chick is
Before they found the body, Ricardians, like Igor in Young Frankenstein, said "What hump?".
@Goodness Graces a "deformaty" but not a hunchback.....so what would u call that huge curve in his spine " minor scoliosis u can't even tell ! " yea ok that shit was BADD he walked funny and everything u should watch that show again bro IF U watched it at all
@Goodness Graces It was minor enough that clothes could conceal it without too much difficulty. But people who like to think that Shakespeare was more accurate than he thought (never mind the fact that the guy wasn't exactly living in an era of free speech) ignore that.
@@michaelpaiva9924 Kt was not "minor scoliosis," though. It would have been quite severe - enough that one shoulder would have been noticeably higher than the other. Hunchback? Who knows? But an obvious deformity it would have been.
are you interested in documentry or background music.
I’m thinking this cannot be a new documentary?! Right? Maybe we search up Tony and Richard and see what we get?
Children are in your care. Children turn up missing. You've got some hard questions to answer. Even if you're king. Especially if you're king.
They should have left him under that parking lot.
The fact that Henry VII had the princes declared legitimate once he was secure on the throne, so he could marry Elizabeth of York, and if he made this declaration, then he must have been certain that the 2 princes were definitely dead, otherwise if he was unsure, that could have gone very badly if they popped up somewhere. So Henry VII had a very good reason to have them killed, after all if he got rid of Richard, the 2 princes would or could have easily been put back on the throne. They would always have been a problem to any Tudor reign whilst they were still alive.
I agree the background music overwhelms the narrative. I'm hearing impaired, & closed captioning was the only reason I could get through it. Otherwise great production!
Very interesting video.Tony as commentator was was excellent as usual. Thank you for sharing this with us
Whoever did the audio for this should find another profession.
What is wrong with the sound mix?
At times the sound effects are louder than the voiceover and the music always is!
Gahhhh please fix the sound :(
I had to turn on CC because the background music and sounds made it extremely difficult to hear the commentator but it didn’t help as I had to turn down the tv volume but couldn’t hear the narrator. FIX IT AND RELOAD, then I’ll watch it.
Cant listen...music way too loud
Now we know that Richard was “uneven”…..
Even though Margaret Beaufort had far more reason to want the princes in the tower dead (so her son would be in position to take the throne) she is only given a cursory mention as possible conspirator or mastermind of their deaths. Perhaps because she was a woman, historians are pretty quick to discount her, citing her overt regliosity, however, she was absolutely certain God wanted her son on the throne, and had engineered the marriage of Elizabeth of York with her arch enemy Elizabeth Woodville who she loathed above all others as she was "common." This marriage contract was known to Richard III. Her third husband Stanley was Constable of the Tower, but the claim is not until after Oct., when the boys disappeared months before. By this point in Beaufort's life, she would have done anything to put her Henry on the throne, and conspiring to "make them disappear" would certainly have had her support, a fact known to everyone.
I agree!
Nah Only Why would Richard have them bastardized? He planned that. Margaret NEEDED them to stay legitimized so her son would have a more stable connection to claim the throne. Remember Elizabeth of York was still Edward the 4th’s(a rightful king) daughter. He wouldn’t have lasted as king without her by his side. After the death of Edward IV and the presumed disappearance and death of both princes Edwards OWN men turned to Henry VII. Let’s not forget that No one but Richard and his closest advisor and guards had access to the high security prison in that Tower. Also Stanley was made constable well after the princes’ last sighting which seem that they were already gone at that point (also don’t think Richard trusted him enough given the fact that he KNEW at this point Margaret wanted her son on the throne instead of him). Richard had ALL the motive. He declares them bastards and claims himself king….there are whispers about the vine that there is a plan to end his reign and seat the rightful kings because he knows his proclamation of claiming them illegitimate is hearsay at best, he takes them out before they can be broken out. He learned a big lesson in the trials of his brother’s reign. He chooses to take the little king and his prince brother out before can come to that. And let’s not assume he didn’t know anything about the pre-contracted agreement for Henry VII to marry the eldest sister of the two princes. If anything I think Stanley…like many others were growing sus about the whereabouts of the princes. You know their mom had to have been sending her own people to investigate. When they got not a sign or an inkling on the princes that was when everything was set to go to take that throne. Phillips Gregory got people fantasizing LOL
About 20 yr ago a man came forth claming that he is the rightful hier to the Thrown and that after QE2 death is is going to claim the Thrown for himself ., so I suppose it depends on how long QE2 lives , can she out live this
Contender or if he is to old to make a legimett clam .
There is a man liveing in Australia who claims to be the next hier apparent in Williams place also .He claims to be Charles 1st born and is the son of Camilla , however being illigetiamate disqualifies him as. having a right. to the thrown ..
So intrigue is rife in the Royal Family even to this very day .
DML
Unfortunately, the sound makes it unwatchable.
My favorite British King 🤴
What os up with the music in the background. Editing!?
I always thought that little girl who found Excalibur in a lake in Wales was supposed to be the queen. Aren't watery tarts throwing swords supposed to be the basis of government here?
Scimitars... swords is another country... Wales, maybe
Something is really screwed up with the audio, you can't even hear the narrative at some points, the background noise is way too loud.
Sound mixing on this video is horrible. unwatchable sadly.
A pregnancy could safely be completed anywhere between 7-9 months plus. In medieval times often later than 9 months. This record means nothing. Also there have been other records found to show that York indeed met his wife once or twice that would fit in with the time period. The less lavish christening could simply be that indeed the child was premature or unwell and they wanted to christen him swiftly. They wouldn’t want to advertise what would be perceived as a weakness. Also what we know of Cecile Neville, his mother, would indicate that her piety and steadfastness would never allow for an affair, and also how would she have been able to get away with it when always attended? This line of reasoning is very disappointing as it doesn’t fit the evidence as well as logic and it seems to be a lame attempt at creating sensationalism
Why would someone go to all the trouble of making this, and then drown it out with background music and sound effects?
Can't watch due to the music and background sounds!. Can't even hear the narrative.
This is from 2003. Some new information has emerged since then. For instance Richard III's remains confirmed his skew posture.
I immediately thought about this when it was mentioned.
The scoliosis was confirmed but no hunchback nor withered arms and legs were found. And with the demonstration of a young man with a similar degree of scoliosis and no horseback history proved Richard could be very agile while wearing his armor and on horseback. Shakespeare was vivid in his defamation of the Tudors' target. Elizabeth Tudor could say, Off with his head had he written the truth about Henry Vll's family debauchery. Tudors proved to be treacherous.
I saw this a few years back. The sound mix was a lot better then.
Impossible to hear Tony. The background music, singing, birds, etc really impede the quality.
Can’t even watch because of the music. I have been waiting on Tony telling us this story… fix the music please
What struck me is the fact he took back loose change from the Taxi Driver.
But that's because BBC pays such a pittance for it's Luvvies .
Wow! Talk about a surprise ending!
I had difficulty with the audio on the video. Tony's narration was often drowned-out by the background music, making subtitles a necessity. Unfortunately, TH-cam's captioning leaves something to be desired.
Back ground music is very distracting!!
Some historians believe that Hastings was, indeed, involved in a conspiracy, and one, Clements R. Markham, believes he was executed a week after the meeting..
The brutal reign of Richard II, who was crowned at age 10, while not fresh in people's memory, would still have been common knowledge. It is reasonable to suppose that no one wanted to risk a repeat of that if another minor took the throne. Installing Richard as regent makes perfect sense in such a case.
This documentary completely ignores Titlulus Regius, an act passed by Parliament. Obviously, Parliament accepted Bishop Stillington's evidence of the illegitimacy of the princes and their sister, Elizabeth, and named Richard the rightful king. After Henry Tudor took the throne, he wanted to marry Elizabeth, but couldn't marry a bastard. so he had Titulus Regius repealed *unread*. However, this also restored the boys' claim to the throne, and he couldn't have that. If anyone had real need to get rid of the boys, it was Henry, who was a bastard son of a bastard son himself.
Shame the background music was so loud. The distance between Rouen and Pontoise is barely 60 miles. Perhaps Richard duke of York rode back from time to time to visit his wife. Unlikely, but still possible. True that Edward was very tall and York and Gloucester were a lot smaller, but still... also was George Duke of Clarence legitimate? In which case his son Edward earl of Warwick would have been the heir, or was he barred from ever being able claim the throne because of his father's treason? I think we shall never know for sure what happened, but fascinating video, thanks.
Clarence's descendants were attainted, which means they have no claim on the throne. By Richard. But he didn't kill them and he looked after them. So why kill one brother's kids but not the others?
Hard to hear him over that music
No one has a legitimate claim to any throne. "Royalty" is nonsense.
Wow. I shut everything off on my phone thinking I had something open with music running. It’s this stream and it overwhelms the narration A shame. I can’t finish this
It depends on your position concerning Tudor's claim.
Waste of a doco. Terrible loud music.
Such an interesting documentary...but the overly loud music was terribly distracting. Please fix (if possible) for future uploads...😉
I was thinking to myself hope that music stops can't think lol
Would have been a really great documentary, if you didnt need captions to understand it
NOOOO. Tony! Please read all of John Ashdown Hill's books. Richard NEVER called his BROTHER a bastard. His claim to the throne in Titulus Regius was based on his assertion that his brother's marriage was bigamous and that his SONS were therefore bastards. A really egregious historical error on your part.
The accusation that Edward IV was a bastard was an old calumny. Cecilly's pregnancy lasted 42 weeks which is within the normal range for a normal gestation. Scandal closed. Count the weeks. I did. Did you? I did some research. Did YOU?
Terrible audio.
This channel has a problem with the soundtrack for most of its videos. Dialogue levels are too low while background music tracks are too loud. Whoever is uploading these clips is doing a lousy job.
Its the chinese communist party
Why isn’t the discovery of Richard’s skeleton not in this documentary?
Toss a coin to your witcher
The background noise was louder than the narrator
Jamming to the music, didn’t know it was a documentary
💯🤣
Y’all can do math but perhaps y’all should study birth a bit more… that’s still within the realm of being a legitimate heir to York. There is a ton of logical explanations for that birth.
Anne, Richard's wife or Margaret Beaufort had them killed.
No they didn’t. Neither would have had the authority or the opportunity to dispose of them. The Tower was the most secure prison in the country.
More Lancastrian /Tudor propaganda, complete with sinister music whenever Richard is mentioned.
Great doc, bad sound
I’ve always been fascinated by the story of the boys in the tower, and was so excited when I found this video. Unfortunately, the sound is terrible, so I won’t be watching it. Very disappointing.
Good positive explanation ---- Kings and Generals always secrets and mysterious -----
The background music is overpowering. In addition, the ads just thrown in willy-nilly are infuriating.
This music is unbearable!
The addition of the overwhelming music seriously interferes with the content. Most annoying !
I think that Richard III was a loyal King. I think that Richard was brave, given how he died. He died like a King. I think that he honoured his duties to his brother and The Princes. I think that history has done Richard III a great, great disservice. I don't think that Richard III either murdered The Princes, or had them murdered.
If I am right, then those two bodies that were discovered won't have any common or Kingly ancestry inside of them at all.
I think that Richard III did a "Luke Skywalker" and "Princess Leia" on the two Princes.
As soon as Richard III got wind of an invasion, Richard III moved the princes, in secret, to France, where they were split up, raised and educated, before returning to England decades later.
I think that the Princes were replaced with two unrelated lookalikes, who were later murdered, and then buried in the tower. Richard III allowed the rumours to spread, because he wanted people to believe that the Princes were dead. He wanted the rumours to spread so that Henry VII would hear the news. The stand-in's were murdered, so that Henry VII wouldn't look for the Princes if he was victorious at Bosworth Field and crowned King, which he was. If Henry thought that the Princes were dead, then why bother looking for them? It is unlikely that Henry VII knew what the princes looked like, so he would believe that the two stand-in's were The Princes. Furthermore, if the bodies were buried somewhere in the tower, probably in a state of decomposition, then Henry VII couldn't formally identify them later on, if the bodies were discovered. Henry VII's throne was, as far as he was concerned, secure.
From Richard III perspective, the Plantagenet line, and their claim to the throne survived, even if he died in battle. However, if Richard III survived the invasion, Richard III knew where the Princes were, so they could just be recalled at the right time, to resume their position in the Royal line of succession.
Later on in life, the Princes returned to the UK. One Prince died in the battle of Stoke Field (1487). The other prince returned to face Henry VII under the name 'Perkin Warbeck', who was hanged as if he was part of the social elite, instead of being hung, drawn and quartered as a traitor, which was the usual way of executing traitors in those times.
That is my theory anyway.
Nothing will be proven, unless the two bodies are, at some point, scientifically examined.
Have you historians ever thought about Margaret Bamford, being the killer of the princes in the tower as her husband was guardian to the two Princes, so he, but Margaret Beaufort would have the opportunity
Music too loud.
The bones found shows a hump and the dna is a match. So the fact that it was added to the painting after the fact is weird.
interesting about one of my uncle ancestors and I’m more related to the Tudor king Henry the 7th and his son Henry the 8th
The ambient noise like the vehicle engines and the music was so overwhelming that even with the captions on I could barely follow the story. Whoever edited this otherwise very interesting video needs a little more education or their hearing checked.
The foley guy should go back to school too.
Yes, but why didn’t Richard put the boys in the sanctuary where their mother was in the holy church and why in the tower?
Strange logic - treating a picture of Richard III, painted when he was the king, as authentic evidence of his lacking deformity ignores the questions of power and propaganda.
This documentary is in large part spoiled by too loud music and unnecessary background noise, which obliterates much of the dialogue.
Audio balance here is horrible. Background noises drown out the narration.
the line was never straight - Henry Tudor won the crown by right of conquest just as William the conqueror did before him. At the point he is coronated and has support of the people he becomes the rightful king and the line changes. Of cause when one wants to put a bend in a royal line it is generally a good idea to erase the line that runs straight - which is covered in explaining the death of the princes and if Mary had of just wiped out Elizabeth when she had the chance then history would have gone in a very different direction. There is societies out there that follow the jacobite line as the "true" line. But whatever could have been what only matters in the line of succession is what was and is.
Sorry I couldn't watch, the background sound is too damn loud
Shakespeares description of Richard the third was proven to be accurate after this doc was made. The portrait was not altered after all.
The music is too loud in this doc
I only got 2 minutes into it and the sound mix chased me away. Pity, I'd love to watch it but alas.
“As men say, the apple never falls far from the stem.” - English proverb
Richard iii was a Plantagenet. :)
Say no more.
Just watched "The Lost King" - say no more
If Edward really was illegitimate, why would his father claim him as his? Surely as soon as Edward was born, his father wouldn’t have claimed him. Calculating his birth date to the day like that is not very accurate either. Simple example - my mother was told I am supposed to be born between May 1-st and 3-rd based on the day they thought I was conceived. I was born 2 weeks early! Babies born days before their due date are not “small or sickly” so if Edward was born early, he wouldn’t have been small or sickly if he was born still around the 40-th week. The final few minutes of the video seem to be trying to sensationalise the story, make it a bit more saucy.
I agree with below music is too loud and distracting
We know it's the Halloween season but no need to overkill it with the background music
The music is too much
To understand who killed two young princes is to look at the cause and circumstances of Edward death, was it suspicious? If it was who was closest to Edward could it be the very man he trusted and was loyal to him and then turned against him. If he did turn against him why were there others involved and what was he promised. Did Richard suspect him and if he did then what action did Richard take. Who benefited out of death of princes was it orchestrated to make Richard villain. No one will know the answers you cannot go back into time it was vey long time ago. There will always be questions but no definite answers.
Background music is far to loud and I can’t hear most of what is said. Please make a new one
The music is way to loud I can’t hear the narrator
Hardly can hear Tony when the the music is playing
These video’s are as old as I am !
I sure would like to hear the narrative. The background music isn't background music at all!
Had to stop watching due to the music.
The music is so loud you can't watch this. All narratives are drowned out.
I think one of the things happened to those boys:
1. They died of disease. This is probably the most likely, as most people did die of infectious disease, back then.
2. They died of an accident, possibly while trying to escape. They were Plantagenets, and were already training to be fighters.
3. They were killed by someone who hoped to please the king, as in the case of Beckett.
In any case, once they were gone, poor Richard was sure to get the blame.