I was recently reading about 17th century England and how everyone hated the influence the duke of Buckingham had on James I and Charles I that when he was assassinated everyone celebrated in England. 😂
Something I forgot to mention is that absurd claim than Henry Tudor could have been behind it. In the summer of 1483, Henry Tudor was an absolutely nothing living in France. Just a few months earlier, his mother was in negotiations with Edward IV to bring Henry home. All she ever advocated for was that he receive what she believed was his rightful inheritance. It wasn’t until after the boys disappeared, and the House of York split, that the movement to put Henry on the throne began.
@@tamiwatchesstuffI also agree. But she was in no position to realistically achieve her wish. Richmond, (later Henry VII), was in Europe, a relatively minor figure hustling for support to vie for the English throne. It is ludicrous to suggest he somehow had the means and opportunity to either kill or abduct the princes in the tower.
What I don't understand is if you are loyal and love two people do you say they are bastards and turn your back against them? Control, greed, and power signed the death warrants for the princes..
You can't tell me that NO ONE in the tower new what happened. Warders, guards, Beefeaters....somebody HAD to have let the assassin(s) onto the Tower's grounds through the porte cullis, into the tower itself and into the very room the princes occupied. SOMEONE within the Tower had to have helped.
@Catherine H. Stanley was made Constable of England by Richard III towards the end of 1483, the year in which Edward V and Richard, Duke of York (the Princes in the Tower) disappeared from their confinement in the Tower of London. As Constable (originally a position which constituted command of the royal armies), Stanley was formally responsible for anyone who entered or left the Tower - then the most secure of royal palaces. In this capacity, and as a loyal member of the Ricardian regime at the time, it can be argued that he was at least an accessory to the Princes’ deaths, since once they had entered the security of the Tower they were never seen or heard of again, however his tenure as Constable came after their disappearance . That said, since the Duke of Buckingham preceded Stanley as Constable of the Tower, Stanley could realistically only have had such an opportunity after Buckingham's rebellion and execution in October and November 1483 on becoming Constable. This would have given Richard and Buckingham - considered far more likely contenders for killer of the Princes - ample opportunity to dispose of the Princes between their confinement in June 1483 and the rebellion in October.
@Rebecca Farley ... Absolute hogwash! Even had Diana survived the car crash this would not prevent Charles becoming King. And being married to the Duchess of Cornwall does not prevent him becoming King. Death or abdication will be the only reasons he won't become King.
How many people could freely enter and leave the Tower on a daily basis? Anyone of them could have been the murderer. They wouldn't have been suspected due to the routine nature of their coming and going.
ONE QUESTION PLEASE! At 05:25 they say that (quote): "nearly 200 years after the disapperance of the two Princes, skeletons were found and (...) their identity was never estabilished. They were buried again and (?) TODAY THEY ARE BEHIND REACH". >>> WHY?? Why those bodies that were reburied are today "BEYOND REACH"???
because they have been interred in St Paul's cathedral and are considered by the state to be members of the royal family to be DNA checked they would need the queens agreement without it they cannot be touched.
+2serveand2protect as far as I know there have been multiple requests to test the bones suspected to be the princes in tower and they have all been denied by both the queen and the church of England as she fears it might set a precedent for royalty to be disinterred anytime a historian wished to answer a medical question from history.
Gemma Payne ..ooh, JEESUS! Science, History - TRUTH ITSELF - should take precedence over ANY "monarchy rights", Goddamit!... This is appalling that in a civilized society we still have "delusions of grandeur" blocking the path to the Truth - WHATEVER TRUTH MAY WE FIND!... ...REVOLTING!...
+2serveand2protect It is rumored that Edward the 4th was and illegitimate child, and had no rights to the thrown to begin with. (One of Richard's claims for taking the throne) So DNA testing those bones might actually prove that every king and queen to sit on the throne since Richard the 3rd, was of no blood relation to John of Gaunt through the patriarchal bloodline, which would mean that the current Queen is not the rightful heir; though she does have that connection through the Bowes-Lyons bloodline, but not through King George 6th.
I disagree with the comment that Richard could not manage without Edward IV. He successfully, and independently, ruled over northern England. I think he had the experience and the skill when it came to military strategy, and simply made the first move before the Woodvilles could get too far ahead after Edward's death. I think he risked everything: he wanted to be King, and that was all-or-nothing.
I don’t think Richard ever wanted to be king. After Bishop Stillington dropped his bombshell at the Privy Council meeting, Richard, as a good Catholic, had no choice but to accept the kingship.
@@nbenefielBishop Stillington claims to eye witness on Edward IV marrying Eleanor Butler before marrying Elizabeth Woodville but the files on this marriage had never been presented
@@itachi-kun7736 Well there are the documents in a French Cathedral that seem to suggest that Edward 1Vth was himself illegitimate . Maybe Richard felt he had no choice.
@@hogwashmcturnip8930well why would richard be so comfortable in allowing Edward to rule so for so long then be totally uncomfortable with the illegitimate son taking ova nah makes no sense to me if u have not be playing be the rule for several years already why start nw 😅
@@KatyWilson-df1qw Do you Really think that? A bloke spends all his life as 2nd string to his brother, in the hope that he will become king? That is a little weird. Rather like your typing. The documents did not come to light until After Edward died? But ' Edward's own mother had made reference to him being a bastard? It is not about the brats in the tower being illegitimate ,it is about Edward IV being a result of his mother playing around with an archer while hubby was away fighting somewhere else. If you look at it That way, Richard realised he was the only Legitimate Yorkist heir left. And as such he had no reason to kill illegitimate kids of an illegitimate king. But he did have a reason to claim the throne
Elizabeth Wydville was my 17th great-grandmother ( I am descended from her son from her first marriage) so I take this personally . :) I have studied this for years and I am convinced that RIchard did them in.
Can I ask how did u find this out im not being rude quite the opportunity desperate to find out who my 17th 16th. Generations etc that im related to ??plz let me know
An also I to have come to this conclusion as I like u although I dnt knw for sure I just feel emmensly connected to this period this particular war aswell of the rose's the whole time an place an events feel so very personal an iv looked at this mystery of the boys an no matter which way u try an see him innocent it doesn't make sense his actions none of them lead to any sensible conclusion of richard intentinding to crown Edward the only logical explanation to His actions when carefully looked at his malicious intent
@@KatyWilson-df1qweverybody is related to her in some way - so far she has 7trillion 3billion 18 billion 7thousand 8hundred and 65 descendants- 6 more since I started typing - oops there’s another
They're inturned in Westminster Abbey which is holy ground & so they can not be disturbed. The Church of England will never allow them to be disturbed in order to be examined for religious reasons.
@Amethyst- You are correct in saying their would need to be Church of England approval in order to exhume the remains, and obtain what they need in order to DNA evidence. However, all that really means is that permission would be needed from the sitting Monarch, considering that the Monarch is the head of the COE. Just because Queen Elizabeth II has denied requests to obtain DNA from the remains, it doesn't mean Prince Charles or Prince William will do the same. In fact, I think that one of them will allow this to happen. The current Queen is almost from a bygone era, where things like exhuming remains and getting DNA evidence were not proper topics for discussion. There is also the issue that Richard was the last king from the House of Plantagenet, and he has living relatives. That could be a bit of a sore spot for the House of Winsor, considering that there are other living people, more closely related to the Plantagenets, Tudors, or Stuarts, than they are. Elizabeth's II's predecessor's from the German house of Hanover only got the English throne because they were Protestants. She has no desire make this a major topic. Anyways, I didn't mean to drone on, but this is complicated stuff.
@@dmgib5239 I agree, I think when Prince Charles is king he'll think about it differently. Everyone needs and wants to know if those bones belong to the princes.
I agree that they should test the remains found in the Tower, but even if they aren't the remains of the princes, that doesn't vindicate Richard. There are also some remains in York family crypts that it has been suggested might belong to the princes. To me, that better fits the scenario of this uncle who did the politically expedient thing he justified as what the realm needed but still might be troubled enough by the act to make sure the undoubted children of his brother were laid to rest with the family.
Cancer was rare in antiquity. Perhaps Edward had an infected tooth and died from infections. Henry Tudor never produced any bodies. Why? If Terrell did, what happened to the remains?
I think Richard was the master mind behind the murders of his nephews he was is the only person who had a motive that was secure his throne that how they were doing back in those days and further back in the ancient Rome and Cleopatra days if anybody was a threat or if thought you they were a threat they would kill torture and execute them in a lot cases some people were accused on speculation without any proof or forged letters that wasn't their signiture yes I still believe Richard had his nephews it killed to gain the next throne but he wasn't the only person on throne to commit vicious murders so was Henry the VIII he was just as cold heartless vicious killer too
Starkey relies largely on Thomas More's writings to prove his point. Thomas More was 5 years old in 1483...not exactly a reliable witness. Also More was writing during the reign of Henry VIII, the son of Henry VII and, of course, a Tudor. Obviously he wasn't going to annoy Henry VIII! in More's defence he was only repeating the history he'd been taught as a child. We all know history is written by the winners. Starkey is strongly biased towards the Tudors and is very foolish and arrogant in his assumptions.
@@linpollitt8950 totally agree. That was pretty obvious in this. He totally buys the Shakespeare version of Richard III. I usually like him but he is very biased in this.
it is amazing, how everything concentrates on possible evidence to convict Richard of the murder. But on the other side, everybody neglects that Henry had at least the same strong motive to get rid of the boys - and no alibi whatsoever... Are we all victims of the Tudor propaganda, the Shakespearean Richard III?
Michael Zientkiewicz My thoughts exactly. They completely left out the theory of The Tudors themselves being the masterminds behind the death of the two princes.
Ashley Morris Because it is nonsense. The two princes were last seen in July of 1483 and at that time Buckingham was certainly not supporting Tudor. Tudor is in France with very little money and there is really no way for him or his mother to get assassins into the tower. Even if it was possible the problem would be that Tudor needs to get of rid of King Richard III and then he would need to get rid of his son and others. There is no motive really.
Kristin Harris "last seen" is not quite a synonym for dead, or is it? - Who says, the boys were killed shortly after they were last seen? Who could possibly ever prove that kind of assumption? It is plausible that the princes were still alive and kept in hiding inside the tower.
Michael Zientkiewicz Of course it is possible. Hence the speculation even after 500 years. What is clear is that people at that time believed the boys to have been murdered. and that King Richard III was behind their murder. There are written records from the time to back up this belief. The fact that neither boy ever shows up again is a also evidence of them being murdered. Of course there is no concrete proof unless we can get DNA testing and perhaps a more precise age for the two skeletons found in the tower.
+tudor chick It is easy to say that 530 years later and we know the boys murder led to Yorkist support for Henry Tudor and his eventual victory but the reality is that there is no way that Margaret Beaufort would have been able to know that would be the outcome. Ricardians like to paint her as this master manipulator but murdering the Princes in the Tower would have no obvious benefit for Margaret Beaufort or her son. She really could not predict what would happen.
+Kristin Harris There's also the fact that Edward of Middleham (Richard's son and official heir) was still alive when the princes disappeared so it would have made no sense for Margaret to kill them. Margaret was a pious and strong woman, and hardly anybody could predict that Henry would be king including her. His chances were flimsy until the princes and Edward of Middleham died.
+Charlotte Torres She is simply the most unlikely of a person. There is a reason no one accused her of any wrong doing at the time. No one would have believed it and if Richard III could have blamed a Lancastrian conspiracy for their murders he would have done so.
If it makes you feel any better there is a set of video on TH-cam called the trail of king Richard it's 70ts and has historians pitting it out with real history of the man it has the historian on here as well as others and it came to the conclusion I thought it would very interesting
+warp9p65 No, you're wrong. There was a simulated trial of Richard III back in 1984 on Channel 4. The simulated trial followed English proceedings. A jury returned a not guilty verdict. It was easy to see that the acquittal was due to lack of concrete evidence. So the American lawyer would be right when he says he could get an acquittal for Richard III. If you can find the Trial of Richard III on TH-cam, it is well worth watching.
Spot on. To even mention a modern jury whilst commenting on a 15th century crime is ludicrous in the extreme. No wonder O J Simpson walked away a free man! However, since this "Hollywood " lawyer gave a legal opinion, has he never heard of "means, motive and opportunity?" Who but Richard had all three ? I find it incredible that any historian or academic, (even those with a book to plug), would engage with the romanticized revisionist garbage that seeks, via ridiculously Byzantine theories, to rehabilitate Richard's reputation. Sometimes, the obvious suspect is, indeed, the culprit.
The most convincing evidence that Richard III did not kill his nephews is the way he cared and protected the children around him. His illegitimate daughter and son, which he had before he married Anne Neville, lived with him and their son. Then he also brought to live with them the daughter and son of his brother George and Anne's sister Isabel when they were orphaned. He had been faithful to his brother King Edward IV all his life and had his complete trust, so how could he possibly treat specially this brother's children differently? It makes no sense!
+Violet Alexander Simple, his brother Edward was dead, he didn't really owe anymore loyalty to him, especially when his children stood in his path to the thrown. The difference with George's children is that they were further from the thrown and not as much of a threat; and they were related through his brother on one side and his wife on the other. Richard got rid of the people who tried to protect the boys, their maternal uncle and brother. The fact that the queen (dowager) feared for them, even in fear of Richard says a lot.
The others weren't heir to the throne. You never really never know anyone. Especially someone who lived in the 15th Century. It's very unlikely two healthy young boys would've died on their own and there were no plagues in England at that approximate time. Plus, they disappeared all at once. Before people saw them outside on castle grounds and then one day they were no longer there.
@@uniquesongstress Actually George's son would have been higher in the succession, had he not been attainted. As for 'protecting the boys' the Rivers were a cancer in the body politik and were, like all of the famiilies then, just in it for their own ends. They would have ruled the country from behind a little boy. They weren't protecting the boys, they were using them.
This happened on Richard's watch, and the Lord Protector obviously did not protect them. Moreover he went out of his way to gain custody of the two young princes. He intercepted Edward V and company at Stoney Stratford, arresting those in charge of the prince, and subsequently had them beheaded at Pontefract castle. I think that demonstrates bad intent to start with. As soon as Richard had both the young princes in the tower Edward V's coronation was postponed indefinitely, by Richard, and moves were afoot to declare Edward V illegitimate as heir to the throne based on Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, said to be illegitimate because of a pre-contract on Edward's part to marry Lady Eleanor Butler. That Richard was moving to take the throne for himself seems obvious to me. Wicked uncles are a regular feature of medieval dynastic politics, and one can understand a noble thinking, I could bend the knee to my older brother, but never to my snotty nosed nephew! It cannot be proven, but I believe Richard III had the two young princes, disposed of.
Your point about Richard III being the Lord Protector (and not doing so) is probably the best, least diluted point I've heard! Makes total sense; particularly that he doesn't speak of or explain their disappearance. If you want to watch something great, I suggest another YT video called "The Trial of King Richard the Third", its channel is: valentinejay. It's a trial put on by the BBC where a real judge, jury, defense, and prosecution assess (and come to a verdict) if Richard III was responsible for the Princes murders. It's like a 20 part series but they're just about 10 mins each. It's funny to see a young David Starkey bc it's from 1984, and OMG, is he ever pompous lol.
It can not be shown that it happened on Richard's watch. They were not announced to be missing until after Henry VI had assumed the crown, despite the princes' greater claim.
Wendy Hull There were quite a few judicial killings for treason, and getting parliamentary of judicial backing of you wanted to remove someone wasn't a high bar for a king. Yet Richard never requested one against the (bastard) princes. What risk did he have from such children? None, as they had already been declared illegitimate. By contrast, Henry VII was also a 'branch' of an illegitimate line, and not the most senior branch at that. Rather, he became king by' right of conquest'. If the boys were alive, he would have to kill them.
First, King Henry VII would not have to kill the Princes in the Tower. If he won the crown by right of conquest then the crown was his. For reference one would only need to look at Henry Tudor's father-in-law. He won the crown by right of conquest and left King Henry VI and his son, Edward of Westminster, alive. Tudor could also extend Titulus Regis if he were to enter London and find the two boys alive and well in the Tower. The most often repeated response to that argument is that he had promised to marry Elizabeth of York in order to gather support and he could not fulfill that promise if he maintained the act of Titulus Regis because that would in turn mean that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate as well as her two brothers. This is not a valid argument in my opinion, especially by people defending King Richard III, because King Henry VII could simply lift King Richard III's claim and make it his own. That claim of course was that "new information came to light" and therefore any oath given before that information became known is void. Of course all of this speculation is most likely pointless. The Princes in the Tower were almost certainly murdered in the summer of 1483. Elizabeth Woodville would not have supported Henry Tudor if she believed her sons to be alive but the most damning evidence for the two princes being murdered in the summer of 1483 is that King Richard III never even attempts to show the two boys as alive and well after the summer of 1483. If King Richard III could have produced the two boys as alive and well he would have done so in order to avoid rebellion. The first rebellion was in the fall of 1483. He could have prevented this rebellion, bloodshed and a loss of support by simply allowing the two boys to be seen. He was not able to do that. These are just the two most obvious problems. There are so many others....
I have always looked at it as, regardless of who did what to whom, or why, it seems the boys disappeared on Richard's watch, so to speak. If the children were plotted against, simply not guarded adequately, or even died of common illness, it happened on Richard's watch. When you are in authority, the buck stops with you, whether you are involved or not.
That is saying that a Policeman is guilty of robbery because he couldn't stop the actual criminal from committing the crime. You would blame the cop because he was unable or couldn't stop the criminals?
No, but if the offenders died while in custody, then someone was careless. People in authority cannot afford carelessness. I worked with a lot of military officers in days gone by, and they taught me that.
kennashan And they must taught that to always backup someone else that screw up and killed a civilian, because that what the military always does, always covering their backs of each other, not matter how much innocent people they kill or how many people they torture.
Whether or not Richard killed the boys, he was in charge of them. Their mother was in sanctuary, and he was their nearest adult male relative, so he should have protected them to the best of his ability. Apparently he did not.
Come on... sometimes the most simple answer is the one you have to pick... Richard may not be the ugly evil hunchback that Shakespeare describes, but, obviously, he did it... he killed the boys... that´s how it was done back then... coup, after coup, after coup... just like Edward IV did to Henry VI, Richard did to the heirs to the throne... it´s amazing how Richard III´s fans try so desperately to find escuses for him not to be the prince´s murderer... he was the man who would gain the most if the princes got killed...
Julia Sardinha You expressed my thoughts about this gloomy affair. Of all “candidates” Richard is definitely the most likely one... and those who try to defend him sound too biased to be taken seriously. The fact that Richard carried out several useful reforms and may have been a capable ruler doesn’t obliterate his ignoble behaviour towards his nephews.
@12345grov i know It by now....this comment was written a few years ago... But again... He's being or not a hunchback is Just a medical condition that solely has nothing to do with being evil like Shakespeare portraits him. The truth is that anyone who had a drop of Royal blood back then was an evident treat to who had the means to keep power. The boys Just had to Go... It's almost "objective"... Almost "business"... Unfortunately...
What isn't talked about here is the imprisoning of the princes' cousin, the son of Edward the 4th's brother George. He was sent to the tower at the age of 10 and kept there until his death at the age of 27. It was Henry 7th who had him killed at a mock trial coz he was the rightful king and a threat to him. If Edwards 4th's children were illegitimate George's son certainly wasn't .
When George was convicted of treason his children were disinherited from any title and his son from ever being able to take the crown. it was just that Edward's two sons were gone and Richard's son died so Edward, Earl of Warwick was the only male heir to the York throne so he was a threat to Henry Tudor.
@@janefelix3821 Where there is a claim, there is a threat. Teddy Warwick Earl Warwick is a male and could lead an army in theory. In reality Teddy Warwick was a little boy whose parents were dead and his sister was a just a teenager. They both ended up being beheaded in the end because they had Plantagenet blood meaning they had a stronger claim to the throne than the Tudors.
@@AnnaBellaChannel Teddy's sister was executed 42 years later by Henry VIII at the age of 67. By that point in her life, she was not going to produce heirs and already had children so her execution had nothing to do with ending the bloodline. The Tudor line was well established and had a male heir (the future Edward VI), plus there was talk about removing the restrictions on a female becoming a monarch, which they did, and that allowed Mary I and Elizabeth I to ultimately become Queen Regnants.
@janefelix3821 Yes, it was about ending the Plantagenet bloodline & and their claim to the throne. Henry VIII was angry because Margaret Pole took Catherine of Argon's side in The King's Great Matter, as she was a supporter of his daughter Mary. Plus her son Reginald Pole (12 March 1500 - 17 November 1558) was an English cardinal of the Catholic Church and the last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury, holding the office from 1556 to 1558, during the Counter-Reformation. So Henry VIII could not execute him. So he executed her, 1 of her other sons and her 10 year old grandson for good measure. The Plantagenet's were still a threat to Henry VIII as he only had one male heir, Edward, and two daughters whom Henry VIII had removed from the succession until he put them back in the succession in his will. The Tudor Monarchy could have collapsed under Henry VIII.
thanks for pointing out that Henry VII's imprisonment of Edward for 17 years followed by execution as an adult was likely more cruel than Richard's dispatching of the princes. all these men, especially Henry VIII, were totally evil and vile.
I'm baffled by the Ricardian apologists who all these centuries later are twisting themselves in knots to come up with alternatives to a king having dispatched his nephews to take the crown. It even kind of makes sense that he could convince himself he was doing it for the good of England, as the Wars of the Roses had been fought because of very similar circumstances, with a weak king who first needed a regent because he was an infant and then lost his mind and left his strong queen in charge. One could see Richard surveying the situation after Edward's death and forgive him for seeing similarities to what had plunged England into a long and bloody civil war that he had no intention of repeating. I also think it makes sense that he maybe didn't plan all along to become a usurper, but rather started something with one vision in his head that ended up in the horrible event we see as inevitable looking back on it in a way he did not expect as it was occurring, realizing too late what he was going to have to do to those poor boys. Yet to dismiss entirely the ONE person who benefited most from the deaths and had the motive, means, and opportunity to get them done would have done just that--I just don't get it. If the boys were ill and passed away of natural causes, he would have shouted it from the rooftops, as that would have made him the right and legitimate heir. (Queens ruling in their own right wasn't happening yet, so Edward's daughters would have counted little in the equation.) As a historian, I get that the proof isn't completely there as far as a smoking gun and confession, but there's enough to show Richard for what he was. That might not have been a crippled, twisted, evil monster, but a murderous man convincing himself he was doing all for the right of England and so that his brother's wicked wife and family didn't get their clutches on the throne. It's time to face reality on that score, and, while quite interesting and a boon to scholarship, finding his murderous skeleton in a carpark doesn't change any of the history in which Richard was involved, including some kind of culpability for the cruel end his nephews met.
Calling a medieval king murderous with no proof whatsoever is uncalled for. A suspect, perhaps, as were several others suspect. An historical tragedy with long vanished clues.
@@ellenyoung8283 I'm a historian with summa cum laude degrees and well aware his fellow medieval kings and assorted royals/nobles said it. Buckingham's head at trial might have said it, too, although that is speculation. Yet while you're trying to project our legal standards backwards with this "suspect" business (what, no "person of interest"?), I know by THEIR standards it was NOT a lawful execution for treason when Henry Stafford's head popped off. Even IF you want some happy fantasy about Richard III as an uncle and ruler or some more precise use of terminology from the modern legal system, I know he was breaking the very medieval codes you're suggesting should shield HIM by the standards of the day before subbing a modern ethos over MY judgment--standard Ricardian obfuscation! I'll stick by that adjective and affirm the sentiment based on Stafford alone.
When they uncovered the skeleton of Richard III they were able to prove it was him by doing a DNA with a family member. Why not do the same of the remains of Edward V and his brother.
sam kohen: If the bones in Westminster Abbey turned-out not to have any connection with Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, then that will have created a problem for the House of Windsor. In any event, Queen Elizabeth II won't allow the bones to be tested because Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar responsible directly to the monarch.
great program, my favorite period in history but why has no-one thought of the Lady Margarite Beoufort? She had every reason also to want the two Princes dead or at least removed in some way. She could see I think what Richard was possibly, probably going to do reguarding the throne and if she gave an order to have the Princes killed via also her third husband, Sir Thomas Stanley who was in Richard's inner circle, then she could muster her son, Henry Tudor to fight Richard and win the throne of England. Margert Beoufort had spent at that point nearly 28 years waiting on the sidelines - always waiting for the right moment and opportunity to put her son on the throne. However those two Princes still had to be removed in order for any of her planning and quiet schemeing to happen - just every bit as much, for his own reasons that Richard also needed them gone. Plus we know there was an awful lot of Tudor properganda after Henry Tudor took the throne of England, of course the Tudors were going to make Richard as much of a villan as possible and throw the blame as far away from them as they could. So I say Lady Margarite Beuofort was a good contender for murdering the princes and one who has been completely overlooked most of the time when this comes up.
Her name does get thrown in the ring a lot but I think given that she was under house arrest at the time, I don't think she had the means. Doesn't mean it was impossible though.
Beaufort did not have the opportunity. Also, the possibility of her son taking the throne was very distant. Beaufort was also communicating with the boys' mother through messages delivered by a shared doctor.
Hopefully when the current Queen passes on, legislation can be passed to have the DNA tested. Because there's so many people who want to know. Actually, we all need to know the truth! Stop concealing what the public should know!
@@louisavondart9178 based on him being in charge of the boys , the tower, the city, the nation at the time , based on there being 2 attempts at freeing the boys by revolutionary civil war , many people were killed , by making those two disapear Richard saved thousands of lives , Richard did the right thing as grim as that might seem , rulers have to think about the greater good in times of crisis, the kid's mother , his brothers widow whom killed his brother George was trying to kill him , it was chaos , Richard looked for a safe fast way to create stability , I'm s supporter of Richard I'm not slandering him 👍
@@hypatiastanhope4716 ... Buckingham had more of a motive. Richard had made a vow in public to protect the heir to the throne and people took that shite seriously in those days. Buckingham needs to be looked at very closely.
I'm so glad they had such an handsome actor playing Richard III. I have always loved Shakespeare's play, but King Richard is not always portrayed as a handsome man... Why not? His brother was handsome?
my opinion: at the end of the day.......we will never know who murdered those young boys, It's just very tragic that who ever killed them was willing to perform such an act on 2 small children...royal or not!!
No acquittals for Richard! He had means, motive and possession of the persons! Has only to do with necessity! You can't keep the king you are usurping alive, doesn't work. I think once he took the Uncle and half Brother of the King, then goes and tells his baby king "no worries these guys who raised you have to go"! How much time do you think Richard has when his nephew reaches majority, is the King gonna just say "No worries I hardly even missed my family" or is he gonna give Richard the Lord Hastings treatment!
I think that they forgot one other suspect in this mystery... Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby... The mother of Henry VII... At that point Elizabeth Woodville, who I'm sure was desperate to rescue her sons, decided to join up with Margaret and Buckingham in order to carry out this "rescue"... Margaret obviously had a stake in the princes' lives as she tirelessly campaigned for her son to become king.. Henry Tudor's claim to the crown was very weak at best... So in order for him to claim his place/throne they needed to make sure nobody else had a stronger claim to it.. Even though the sons of Edward and Woodville might have been declared illegitimate, this could have been disputed and it was all too possible that they could have had their legitimacy back... The young princes' were a threat to her son, Henry Tudor's, being crowned... So why not act as if though she was genuinely wanting to rescue the princes, her and Buckingham might have used this to murder those boys and it was easy for them to pin that on Richard III... Then when all hope was lost for Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret suggested that her son, weak, ugly usurper, marries her beautiful (and fertile- if she was like her mother at all) daughter, which then helps their future children's claim to the throne... I've always thought that Margaret had some sort of responsibility for the princes' disappearance... She conspired and did EVERYTHING in her power to make sure that Henry became the king of England, like the vision she had long time ago.. Her only son (as she was barron after giving birth to Henry at a young age) becoming king is what drove her to marrying specific men- for their title and money which would fund Henry's exile in France and then the revolution, which they won in part to the soldiers provided by France, in which they promised so much that his reign started off in debt to France.. Without her Henry Tudor had no chance in hell to be Henry VII
There are so many problems with this theory. First is that Margaret Beaufort did not campaign tirelessly for her son to be King of England. Margaret Beaufort only campaigned on behalf of Henry Tudor to be allowed to return to England and claim his title as Earl of Richmond for most of the reign of King Edward IV. She also suggested a marriage between her son Henry and the Princess Elizabeth prior to the death of King Edward IV and the King considered it. We do actually know the truth of what Margaret Beaufort was trying to accomplish at the time of the death of King Edward IV. It would have been so completely impossible and outright ridiculous for her to be plotting to put her son on the throne of England. This is modern day Ricardian propaganda. Beaufort would not only have to somehow murder both Edward V and his brother Prince Richard he would then somehow need to kill Edward of Middleham and then finally King Richard III. She would have to find a way to get the assassin into the Tower of London and risk him being caught and implicating her. Why would she do that? They have been declared illegitimate. Murdering two boys who are supposedly no threat to King Richard III because of their illegitimacy makes even less sense for Beaufort to murder them. If the two Princes being declared legitimate at a later time was a a possibility for Henry VII then it would most certainly be a problem for Richard III and his heir Edward of Middleham. The fact is that any problem(or solution to that problem) that people try to pin on Beaufort or Tudor is really intertwined with Richard III. If the two Princes are not threat to Richard III they are no threat to King Henry VII. If they are a threat to a future ruling King of England then in truth they are indeed a threat to Richard III himself and the implication for motivation against Tudor fits Richard III just the same if not better. If the Princes in the Tower could inspire rebellion and be able to overturn Titulus Regis then they were a threat to Richard III and a future reign of Edward of Middleham more so than anyone else. Henry Tudor only becomes the focus of a rebellion once the Duke of Buckingham becomes involved in the conspiracy. The supporters of King Edward V attempt to break him and his brother out of the Tower in late July. No one ever sees them again. Another attempt is being planned when Buckingham becomes involved. It is most likely Buckingham that tells the supporters of Edward V that he and his brother Richard are dead and only then is there a focus on Henry Tudor. This happens very quickly and it is not a well-planned rebellion that has been brewing for years. People are quickly uprooted and flee to Brittany. If Beaufort's plan is to murder the Princes in the Tower and thus cause an uprising in response to their murder then it has to happen in the summer of 1483 and there is no way anyone is getting in to the Tower of London and anywhere close to the two Princes. These were two princes who were very easily deposed by King Richard III. There is no way of knowing that their murder would inspire a rebellion. IN fact it may not have inspired a rebellion without the Duke of Buckingham's involvement and we know that he was firmly in the camp of Richard III until September of 1483. Beaufort's husband does not side with Buckingham and it is not a planned rebellion like what happens in 1485. It is quick, emotional in response and a disaster and the reality is that Buckingham's involvement may have nothing to do with the murder of the Princes but some unknown issue between him and King Richard III. Although murdering the two princes may have angered Buckingham and led to revolt but this is not clear at all.
perfectly stated. Conclusive argument IMHO, though I suppose there will always be those who want so badly for it to not be true as to convince themselves of other possibilities. I read a book about Richard awhile back and he really came off as a sober administrator and loyal brother, and a genuinely likable person, however, it is clear for so many reasons they were killed by his orders. Nothing else makes sense.
The last part was interesting, but Henry VII's presence at James Tyrel's trial might imply something quite different. Maybe if he could bribe Tyrel to blame King Richard, Henry Tudor would be in the clear, in case he had something to do with it or it was done with his knowledge.
I was at the Tower of London last month and they showed in the Bloody Tower this small film that suggests heavily that Richard killed them. I could hear a woman whisper to her children that the evil uncle killed the two boys. I spoke with a warden about this, a bit upset and he too said: It's never been proven, it's a mystery of the Tower.
For anybody in the Royal family back then and even now whoever isnt from a Royal house or a recent descendent of Royalty is considered a commoner. Lady Diana Spencer was consider a commoner even though she came from a prominent aristocratic house and family.
Her mother brought the royal blood. Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, was the daughter of the Count of St. Pol, and the widow of Henry V's brother, the Duke of Bedford. She was the highest ranking woman in Henry VI's court after Margaret of Anjou. She was related to the Holy Roman Emperor, a descendant of Charlemagne and carried Plantagenet blood to boot. Elizabeth's father was of middle rank.
Elizabeth Woodville is a great grandmother of mine. It's interesting learning about the history of England. However, this cold case is chilling knowing that the Princes are great uncles of mine...
Henry VII made a career out of killing off his wife's relatives. I'm of the opinion that it was Henry VII, or someone very close to him, had these boys murdered. IF Edward V was still alive at the time of the death of Richard III, then Henry VII would have been forced to proclaim him king.
I started to watch the White Queen, and I paid a particular attention to Margaret Beaufort, so I did a little bit of research, and I think because she was very ambitious for her and her son Henri Tudor VII, she is the one that murdered the princes and not Richard III, anyway that is my opinion...
Paul Lowe surely they had never been alive after August/ September 1483. They withdrew into the Tower and vanished. Had one or both died, possibly of natural death, Richard III wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to show them and explain they had died - for example- of smallpox or pneumonia. He didn’t. Matter of fact, after the sudden bastardisasating of Edward V and Richard duke of York, never Richard III had them mentioned. Ever. Curious, indeed.
@@AnnaBellaChannel - They found bodies of 2 kids. In the walls. But they will NOT test them. I wish they would. It would be interesting to find out. If they're the princes or not. So it can finally be closed.
@@ravenmaclennan3512 They moved the two boys' bodies to Westminster Abbey and there they will stay. www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under
@28:54 Small example of the absolute brilliance of Dr. David Starkey. The way he does the whole "If? If? NO IFS!" is marvelous. He's my favorite historian, hands down.
No: whoever convinced Buckingham, could have convinced Richard's guy. That's what they always do -- get more people on your side and the power shifts. Otherwise, it doesn't. Henry the 7th could have never won at the battle of Bosworth -- he won because so many people changed sides. Look at how they skip over the FEMALES! Phillipa nailed it. It was common for the mother of the heir to be regent - it made sense. There's only evidence against the fact that Elizabeth was "power hungry"
I want to share my theory. I believe Richard was loyal to his brother Edward iv. But when Edward kill their brother George because he conspired against Edward everything change, Richard was angry and left from court to the north for many years. Also there were rumors that the Woodvilles wanted George dead as well. So when Edward died and name Richard lord protector of the young king it was clear that the game for power was between Richard vs Woodvilles. Elizabeth Woodville wanted to crown her son without Richard present why? And when Richard took the Young Edward under his protection she and the rest of her children ask the church for sanctuary again why? It is clear that she didn't like him. When Richard brought young Edward to the town of London to prepare for his coronation his mother was still in the church. Also Richard killed without a trial her eldest son from her first marriage and her brother, gaurdians of her son. Richard knew that when his nephew becomes king the Woodvilles will eventually kill him to in order to have the whole power. This is the reason he took the crown and lock the princes in the tower and declare them illigitimate. Also the excuse some people here say that Richard didn't have a reason to kill the boys because they were illigitimate now is bullshit besause the people of London loved the sons of Edward, some nobles tried to rescue the princes from the tower and I am sure Richard remembered very well what happened when you leave an alive king ( Henry vi) in the tower. If Buckingham was responsible for their deaths Richard would have said something but he didn't. In the end karma hit him hard in two years he lost his son, wife and his life. The woodviles also lost because even thought Henry vii marry Elizabeth of york they didn't have power anymore. " When you play the game of thrones you win or you die" lol.
Bullshit, I can't say it enough Richard had means motive and malice. All his actions are to get the throne. He had those boys murdered, there is no doubt.
I think I that it was Henry V11 mother that had the two princes murdered. She had a very good reason to want them dead. Richard 3rd was their uncle and crowned himself king but he didn't want them dead. In 1674 two skeletons were found under the staircase in the tower of London and then in 1933 the skeletons were examined and it was concluded that they were of two boys of 12 yrs and 10yrs.
Since she claims her throne threw the Tudor line, it wouldn't pay to find all the commoners in the wood shed. However I doubt it makes much difference. The throne came to the Tudors by war, what ever royal bloodline they were or were not a part of. In that time might made right and its a bit late for a paternity test. I don't see it changing any thing at this point. Fortune Favors the wealthy and the ruthless, say what you will the Tudors were that.
Barbara Ludden I'm pretty sure the current queens bloodline is not actually broken as she is both a descendant of the Plantagenet and Tudor claimants to the throne and would be Queen regardless of who had won at Bosworth? it was certainly not in the interest of the Tudors to find out whom the bones belonged to, ruthless indeed.
I was thinking in comparison to thew common folk, compared to then all the nobles were wealthy. Even if some were richer than others besides neither Henry nor Richard were on the field alone in pitch battle you have to consider the recourses at there command not just there own. Any way I wish the bones would have been subjected to a full forensic exam and DNA. Give the boys back there name, and find out what happened to them.
Tyrell was the guy hired by Richard III to smother the boys. This was in Shakespeare's "Richard III" I don't know if he actually existed. Much of the so called 'history' of Richard III is coming from Shakespeare who was NOT a historian, but a playwright. No where in "Richard III" is any mention made that Tyrell was tortured. He enters the play, does the job, and is gone.
@@michelleblanchard9434 Yes, James Tyrell was a rela person. I'm a descendant of his. .. He confessed to killing the boys which was probably the inspiration for Shakespeare's play
@@tonysadler5290 they used to, but a week ago they phoned me to tell me that they moved to Turkmenistan to open a Mexican sushi bar, but I'm kind of mad at them since they ate my grandmas right foot
Lets be clear on one thing. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest evidentiary standard in the American court system. Just because a jury can't meet that standard does not mean the defendant is not guilty.
Jimmy King If you want to really use the court system - in this case, it wouldn't even gotten to the murder trial, since there are no bodies, no witnesses, no proof of what even happened to the missing persons, no official accusation ever... only suspicion and gossip.
What does fucking OJ Simpson have to do with Richard lll? That was 20 years ago and they have proof. Richard lll and the princes in the tower were 500 years ago with no evidence of anything.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is an artificial standard created by the law. It really has nothing to do with guilt or innocence , but rather evidence and nothing more.
It's not really "artificial." There has to be some standard for weighing evidence. That said, the attorney's observation that he could get an acquittal for Richard is meaningless. Under reasonable doubt -- with no undisputed bodies, no murder weapon, no signed confessions, no eyewitness testimonies under oath, and no signed documents commanding the crime -- _every_ suspect would be acquitted.
The standard of guilt the rich lawyer mentions ('beyond a reasonable doubt') did not exist during the lifetime of the murderer Richard III. 500 years on, it is beyond question: Richard III killed his nephews, the eldest of which was the rightful King of England.
Actually no, rich lawyers had judge Richard III back in the 90' and he was declared not guilty, if you base all your arguments in rumours you wont get anywhere, but well, that what happen when you base all your argument in Tudor propaganda.
Let's be honest. Regardless of who killed the princes in the tower, the Yorkists defeated themselves by splitting into multiple factions and fighting among each other. Everyone had political motives and were bent on gain. Everyone is striving for power and manipulation--and the two boys in the tower are surrounded by wolves and often get portrayed as lambs. The question of which wolf killed them being the only thing left a question. I actually like that this documentary went out of its way to show that at least Edward V wasn't so much a lamb as might have been thought. That he had a bit of spark and potential to him. I find it rather interesting further that a major percentage of the aristocracy turned out to defend Edward IV early on in the Wars of the Roses, but about 20 years later, that percentage has dropped significantly (and I'm not just talking about the number of men--which I expect to be smaller after a period of on again off again war--but simply the number of families supporting the Yorkist is a much smaller percentage of the families available--then again Richard might have thought that he didn't need a big army to show his support--in which case Richard loses because he underestimated Henry VII). Part of this can be taken to the fact that , but also that the Yorkists as they fought among each other soon began to become rather unpopular themselves. Then there's messing with the holy grail of Medieval laws that comes into play: inheritance laws. Both Richard and his brother George eagerly sank their teeth into their mother-in-law's inheritance (considering both brothers married two sisters--the heiresses to Warwick's fortune) that were hers and hers alone. However through some amazing legal loopholes that they exploited, they managed to have her declared legally "dead" so that they could get the incomes of those lands that were hers by rights to come to them through their wives. And then they proceeded to fight and argue with each other over how much of those inheritances each got in turn. George comes out looking just as bad as Richard does, equally. To be fair, the Medieval era was just as litigious an era full of people suing one another over the slightest things like modern America. It's rather funny that a similar kind of "legal loophole" pops up for Richard III to take advantage of with regards to Edward IV's children. Whether or not it was genuine or not is irrelevant IMO, because what matters more is whether or not people perceive it to be genuine or not. And how they react to that. Richard III accumulates power by exploiting legal loopholes before his marriage, he rises to the throne on one. Perhaps, while the aristocracy knew it was legal, they now have a nagging question and a reminder of that earlier legal battle Richard III had with George over their mother-in-law's property. That reminds them of the inheritance law issues. Richard II overturned inheritance laws, and he had the entire nobility turn against him, putting the Lancasters on the throne in the first place. This shows that one does not mess with inheritance laws and not have it be considered a big deal. England got rid of a King for this reason (it being the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to Richard II). The nobles watched as the House of York exploited legal loopholes and then fought with each other over who got what. None of them come out looking rather good in that, and suddenly that firm idea that your children could inherit your property or that your widow might be secure after your death is thrown up into the air. After all, the King used these loopholes--who's to say anyone else can't as well? Is it any wonder that a smaller force turned out to defend Richard at Bosworth? I'm not surprised. Technically it's voting with one's feet in that case. Add in the infighting on the Yorkist side (George vs his brothers; Woodvilles vs Richard; etc.), Buckingham's rebellion, and Henry VII got incredibly lucky. And I can hardly see it as anything more than luck. And it really shows how bad the state of affairs of a nation are if the son of a bastard line--who through his grandmother has more claim to the French throne than the English throne--manages to gather together enough support to take out the sitting ruler. It also says something if that King's showing to defend his crown was anemic (especially compared to the number of families that showed up at the beginning of the war). Truth be told, holding Medieval aristocrats to the standards of morality of 20th or 21st century persons is ridiculous. None of the people involved are total saints, nor are they wicked demons either. They're morally complex individuals all playing for as much power as they can hold, which was simply the status quo of the era. Personally I think +Kristin Harris has a great point about Richard, after Buckhingham's rebellion giving a pilgrimage to Canterbury. Added to that the Woodville-Yorkists defecting to Tudor (they never would have done that if they believed Edward V was still alive), and you have a strong case that Buckingham got someone to do this for him, if not did it himself, under the assumption that it would "please" Richard or help Buckingham himself on the way to the throne. I also agree that Margaret Beaufort makes far less sense considering Richard's son is still alive, and he'd be a greater threat than the Princes in the Tower would, and the fact that Stanley himself doesn't become Constable of the Tower until after Buckingham's rebellion makes it less likely, and the point that if Richard III could pin the blame on a Lancastrian conspiracy--he would have is an excellent point. After all, say that Richard III returns from the North and discovers that his lackeys while he was away had done such a thing. What exactly do you do in such a situation? You punish the lackeys and you try and distance yourself from them, obviously. Then there's the problem of whether or not to admit to the boys being dead. This is where such a theory gets tricky. If they're alive--why not quash the rumors by having the boys appear at mass under guard, like Henry VII did with Edward, the Earl of Warwick? If they're dead and Buckingham completely guilty of the crime--why not include that in his list of offenses and give the bodies a Christian burial? But then there's the issue that the ones who killed him were your lackeys, and you're claiming they acted without your orders. That's tough for anyone to swallow and it's completely untenable a position to be in as it shows you can't keep your lackeys in control? Why you must be a weak ruler then. Richard III completely looses his authority if he publicly admits his lackeys killed the Princes not on his authority. The only reason for Richard to behave in such a way where he neither confirms nor denies their deaths is if the boys died and he knew he couldn't completely wipe his hands clean of the affair entirely, hence his seeking pilgrimage at Canterbury--perhaps even spiritual guidance on the matter. It's fun to speculate, but that's all these programs ever will be. We can guess with different details--but overall it's remained a mystery this long, it will likely remain a mystery further. And quite frankly I think more people would prefer it that way as it would ruin all the fun out of the mystery to have the definitive answer--and probably most people wouldn't believe it anyway.
Yeah, but families separating into factions was common then. Also, the Yorkists downfall didn't occur until the Woodvilles and the Nevilles showed up and took some control. They weren't the only ones to cause their end.
Richard III had a larger army than Henry at Bosworth. Apparently the problem was Richard III went after Henry literally on the field, only to be outnumbered personally.
Richard II was ruling without a council of regents at the age of 13. Edward VI was chafing against his regents to rule in his own right by the time he died at age 15. So why was it necessary for Edward V to have a regent at age 12?
This documentary forgot to mention something important: Edward IV was born out of wedlock. His mother had an affair (she admitted it twice). That meant he couldn't legally be king and none of his children could be king or queen either. Richard III and his other siblings took after their father (Richard looked a lot like his father) and their older brother was over 6 feet tall. When Edward was conceived his alleged father was away fighting a war. And of course Henry Tudor had no claim to the throne himself, and like his mother and the Woodvilles was power hungry.
Richard the lll had the means, motive and malice to commit the murders of the 2 prince's. He demanded that their mother turn them over to him for protection and then all of a sudden they disappear. If I was on the jury I would convict without the bodies and weapon. He wanted the throne very badly. He was a cold blooded murderer. There is no one else that could have done it . He had those boys put in the tower. Sorry to all the supporters of Richard but he had them killed. He may not have done it himself but he had it done.
Scorpion Flower The conspiracy theory is that Elizabeth Woodville sent the real Richard away in secret and sent a peasant boy to the tower in his place
The simplest explanation tends to be the best one. Who benefited the most from their deaths? Richard III. The concrete evidence may not be there but the circumstantial evidence is obvious.
True. ...FURTHERMORE - EVEN IF they died "simply" of some sort of disease...then everybody would STILL blame Richard!...They were in HIS hands and the true motives of their deaths doesn't matter, as much as the fact that HE - RICHARD - WAS RESPONSIBLE for them. It is also true that, had the Princes survived Richard's reign, what would have Henry Tudor do with them??... Wasn't it a "PARTICULARLY GOOD SET COINCIDENCES" that both the Princes die, and then the last contendant to the throne which is Richard himself, after having lost the Battle Of Bosworth Field (thanks to TREACHERY, rather than any "lack of military skills") is KILLED and ...a "MIRACLE OCCURS" - LOOK AT THAT! - Henry comes out as as King, while Richard is blamed for the death of the children. Let me tell you this! I've NEVER SEEN a POLITICAL FIGURE SO DAMN "LUCKY"!... :D :D
Don't forget: Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, sister of the princes. Thus ending the Wars of the Roses. At the end of the day, who really benefitted the most?
Bella Jam who says Richard was disabled? Oh right, Shakespear who supported the Tudors. Richard was actually a great soldier and fought in the war of the roses
Jazzy Paterson Richard's grave was discovered in England, in September 2012. After genetic and anthropology testing was complete it was confirmed he had disabilities . en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England
I believe that it was Henry VII's mother (Margaret Beaufort) so she could put her son and grandson, Henry VIII on the throne. Hence, the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty.
Searia Kett when the boys disappeared in late summer 1483, Richard III had at least one legitimate son. Edward of Middleham. He was aged about 8-9 years old. He was his father heir presumptive. So, why should Lady Margaret have had the boys murdered if the was another, different, heir to the throne? And by which means?
Who benefits from the Princes' death/ disappearance? Henry Tudor, otherwise the public wouldn't be so willing to accept him. Richard III knew that the Princes claim to the throne was not legitimate, their father was suspected to be illegitimate therefore making their claim invalid. With the Princes still on the scene Henry Tudor would have felt threatened, so getting rid of them and blaming Richard was the easiest option. Especially when you have others willing to help you discredit his name.
So, my questions are: 1. Why didn't Elizabeth Woodville leave Sanctuary with her younger son and daughters in 1483 instead of staying there as long as she did? She hadn't been in danger of arrest, so what was she in sanctuary for? She could have left as soon as her elder son arrived in London. 2. Why wasn't Sir James Tyrrell, and the other men his supposed confession said committed the murders, put on trial for regicide? 3. Why didn't Henry VII formally accuse Richard III of having his nephews killed when he put out his attainder against the previous king?
Roslyn Brown I can only help with Elizabeth Woodville, she entered sanctuary when she learned Richard and not her brother had brought her son to London, she knew she'd never even get to her son. And back then escaping London was virtually impossible for her with Richards men there, sanctuary was the only place she could pretend to be safe. If you research church sources about her time there you learn it's actually the arch bishop of Canterbury and not the Duke who convinced her to give up her younger son. It's a sad fact but after her husband's death and her brother's arrest she had no power whatsoever, she was a woman with no help, especially since she wasn't a foreign princess with clout (ex: Katherine of Aragon) . Hope that helps!
I can usually stomach Starkey because I've gotten used to him and I'm aware of his bias, but any documentary that actually uses Philippa Gregory as a serious source is a joke itself. She fancies herself a historian, but she's a hack who managed to bullshit her way to a Ph.D. Embarrassing.
+Christina Volkoff And her PhD is in 18th century Literature, not 15th century History. She has a Bachelor's in History, but it doesn't make her a historian, much less a good one.
+Christina Volkoff Bravo, Bravo!!!She only has a degree in English literature. She is NOT NOT an historian.You are so right. It makes me so mad. I read HISTORY not novels. Right again it is embarrassing. And the claims by the revisonists. Hey and all you people out there who think Buckingham did it.....although he was Constable of England no one could just roll into the Tower without a written warrant by the King. Constable of the Tower Brakenbury would not have let him pass NOT even Buckingham. Besides wrong place wrong time!
Philipa is a Woodville fangirl than a Richardian one. She makes Richard out to be a cheater during his marriage, even though he wasn't like that in real life, and she passes it off as "fact".
"He did it!", "He didn't do it!" Who knows? It was 535 years ago. The truth is lost to history. Read your history, royalty was in a constant state of flux, with murders and executions being part of the game. Richard III was no worse than the rest of that lot.
I believe that Margaret Beaufort was responsible.She could've had someone bribe the guards to let the killers in and turn a blind eye to the murders.Henry had to have known the boys were dead because he got Parliament to declare Edward IV s marriage to Elizabeth to be valid.That meant that Edward V would've been king.Henry wasn't stupid.He would've realized that.If Richard had been behind it then Henry would've made sure that everybody heard about it right after he became king so he wouldn't be threatened with claimants to the throne.He was so paranoid,he would've thought of that.
@Jody Doherty Richard had declared them bastards, but even as bastards they had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry.. as you recall the first thing Henry did was to marry Elizabeth of York
I think He was more in control than anyone as such gives him credit for i for 1 admire his legend and guile. 2 Wicked or wonderful ge leaves such unanswered questions and questionable motives ❤❤❤❤❤
I going to start up the "I Hate Richard III Society" soon. I know what he was, a smooth talking overly friendly demon that had a gentleman like exterior that hides a black heart.
Henry III and Edward VI were both only 9 when they became king, and Henry VI was still an infant when he took the throne. So in comparison Edward IV, at age 12, was practically grown. His ascension to the throne should not have caused any great crisis, unless somebody wanted to usurp the throne. Furthermore, wasn’t it unusual for the country to be entrusted to a single individual during a king’s minority? Do we really know if Edward V put his brother Richard solely in charge, or do we only have Richard’s word for it?
Because he was a child and children could not claim sanctuary, Richard III was within his rights in removing Richard of Shrewsberry from his mother who was in sanctuary.
@@christianpatriot7439 he had no rights. Sanctuary was considered a place where royalty can not touch you. It was about honour and he had guards outside but she came out of sanctuary of her own accord after making terms with Richard
@@laurenhickman9317 Edward V and his brother were both the son of a king. Their uncle was not. So who had the better claim of being royalty? So what right did the uncle have to take any royal out of sanctuary?
This documentary contends that Richard III was unaware of the possibility that Edward IV's marriage was bigamous until Bishop Stillington revealed he had married Edward IV to Eleanor Talbot. He knew that there had been were questions about the validity of Edward IV's marriage because there had questions about Elizabeth of York's legitimacy when the French considered her as a future queen. Richard III made all his plans to seize the throne at his mother's London house. She would have known all the family secrets and she would not have wanted a future king to be dominated by the Woodvilles.
Why are they citing More? It's hard to keep watching a documentary that cites the work of someone they call a historian....who was seven when Richard was killed at Bosworth. People like to pass More off as if he were a witness, but he obviously was not. The fact is, the pre-contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler invalidated the marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. When Richard initially hard of his brother's death, he paid for a memorial mass and swore his fealty to his nephew. Then he started to make arrangements for his nephew's coronation. What he did NOT do was bustle hurriedly toward London, which is what you'd expect an eager and greedy usurper to do. That's what HENRY did. And let's face it, despite the myths, there's no contemporary accounts blaming the boys' murder on Richard. That's the later creation of Henry. Richard didn't have any reason to kill the boys, because there were other heirs between him and the throne, if the Woodville marriage was valid. Why kill just two when there were a half dozen or more possible claimants? Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Richard III was always the loyal brother and servant of his brother. There's no hint of duplicity. In fact, he was such a fair steward that even when he was sent to subdue the north, he did with such unusual level-headedness that the city of York mourned him even to Henry's face.
Henry Tudor is my bet. I believe the princes were still alive at the time of Richard III's defeat at Bosworth. When Henry Tudor won and married Elizabeth of York and realised the boys were still alive, by marrying their sister, Henry automatically gave them legitimacy and they could grab the throne away from him. Naturally, Henry VII had to kill them.
Ok, but what of Elizabeth Woodville? It is known that her and Margaret Beaufort had messengers sent between them to arrange Elizabeth of York to marry Henry Tudor if he took the crown. And this was before he left exile in France and Bosworth Field. Why would Elizabeth allow this unless she believed her sons to already be dead?
But Thomas Moore was only a young boy at the time when Hastings was arrested. How could he have known what happened? Did he later speak to someone who was actually there?
Has anyone else noticed that whenever there is a Duke trying to mess with the English Monarchy, that half the time its a Buckingham?
I died😂😂😂
I was recently reading about 17th century England and how everyone hated the influence the duke of Buckingham had on James I and Charles I that when he was assassinated everyone celebrated in England. 😂
@@joellaz9836 They even celebrated when Elizabeth I died and was replaced by James I.Only to want her back a couple of years later.😂
Buckingham is the Fegelein of England.
The Buckinghams are basically the Lannister’s
They make Buckingham look like the Grinch who stole Christmas
They havnt gone to Africa and India and stolen all their diamonds and resources yet to bring back and make buckingham what it is today
🤑🤣🤣🤣🎉🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🎉🤑🤣
Buckingham be like "Chaos.... is a ladder"
After the death of his father, he was no longer the "heir to the throne", he was Edward V, not a 'prince'.
Wrong. It is not automatic.
But he was considered illigetimate, because his father was previously married to that other woman.
Something I forgot to mention is that absurd claim than Henry Tudor could have been behind it. In the summer of 1483, Henry Tudor was an absolutely nothing living in France. Just a few months earlier, his mother was in negotiations with Edward IV to bring Henry home. All she ever advocated for was that he receive what she believed was his rightful inheritance. It wasn’t until after the boys disappeared, and the House of York split, that the movement to put Henry on the throne began.
Margaret Beaufort believed heart and soul her son Henry was rightful King of England her entire life. Period.
@@ellenyoung8283Agreed. She would do ANYTHING to put her son on the throne.
@@tamiwatchesstuffI also agree. But she was in no position to realistically achieve
her wish. Richmond, (later Henry VII), was in Europe, a relatively minor figure hustling for support to vie for the English throne. It is ludicrous to suggest he somehow had the means and opportunity to either kill or abduct the princes in the tower.
What I don't understand is if you are loyal and love two people do you say they are bastards and turn your back against them? Control, greed, and power signed the death warrants for the princes..
You can't tell me that NO ONE in the tower new what happened. Warders, guards, Beefeaters....somebody HAD to have let the assassin(s) onto the Tower's grounds through the porte cullis, into the tower itself and into the very room the princes occupied. SOMEONE within the Tower had to have helped.
@Catherine H. Stanley was made Constable of England by Richard III towards the end of 1483, the year in which Edward V and Richard, Duke of York (the Princes in the Tower) disappeared from their confinement in the Tower of London. As Constable (originally a position which constituted command of the royal armies), Stanley was formally responsible for anyone who entered or left the Tower - then the most secure of royal palaces. In this capacity, and as a loyal member of the Ricardian regime at the time, it can be argued that he was at least an accessory to the Princes’ deaths, since once they had entered the security of the Tower they were never seen or heard of again, however his tenure as Constable came after their disappearance . That said, since the Duke of Buckingham preceded Stanley as Constable of the Tower, Stanley could realistically only have had such an opportunity after Buckingham's rebellion and execution in October and November 1483 on becoming Constable. This would have given Richard and Buckingham - considered far more likely contenders for killer of the Princes - ample opportunity to dispose of the Princes between their confinement in June 1483 and the rebellion in October.
Without a doubt.
@Rebecca Farley ... Absolute hogwash! Even had Diana survived the car crash this would not prevent Charles becoming King. And being married to the Duchess of Cornwall does not prevent him becoming King. Death or abdication will be the only reasons he won't become King.
Margaret Beaufort may have had a long hand in the deaths.
How many people could freely enter and leave the Tower on a daily basis? Anyone of them could have been the murderer. They wouldn't have been suspected due to the routine nature of their coming and going.
He was 12 and he was blowing doors off. He was a threat to everything. Such a brilliant boy.
David starkey has embellished his theories to a ridiculous degree
Brilliant program, I love the input of my favorite historians!
ONE QUESTION PLEASE! At 05:25 they say that (quote): "nearly 200 years after the disapperance of the two Princes, skeletons were found and (...) their identity was never estabilished. They were buried again and (?) TODAY THEY ARE BEHIND REACH". >>> WHY?? Why those bodies that were reburied are today "BEYOND REACH"???
because they have been interred in St Paul's cathedral and are considered by the state to be members of the royal family to be DNA checked they would need the queens agreement without it they cannot be touched.
Gemma Payne
...so?...is the Queen or ANYONE in the Royal Family interested to "dig up" into that "secret"?...
PS.
Thank You for the answer.
+2serveand2protect as far as I know there have been multiple requests to test the bones suspected to be the princes in tower and they have all been denied by both the queen and the church of England as she fears it might set a precedent for royalty to be disinterred anytime a historian wished to answer a medical question from history.
Gemma Payne
..ooh, JEESUS! Science, History - TRUTH ITSELF - should take precedence over ANY "monarchy rights", Goddamit!...
This is appalling that in a civilized society we still have "delusions of grandeur" blocking the path to the Truth - WHATEVER TRUTH MAY WE FIND!...
...REVOLTING!...
+2serveand2protect It is rumored that Edward the 4th was and illegitimate child, and had no rights to the thrown to begin with. (One of Richard's claims for taking the throne) So DNA testing those bones might actually prove that every king and queen to sit on the throne since Richard the 3rd, was of no blood relation to John of Gaunt through the patriarchal bloodline, which would mean that the current Queen is not the rightful heir; though she does have that connection through the Bowes-Lyons bloodline, but not through King George 6th.
I disagree with the comment that Richard could not manage without Edward IV. He successfully, and independently, ruled over northern England. I think he had the experience and the skill when it came to military strategy, and simply made the first move before the Woodvilles could get too far ahead after Edward's death. I think he risked everything: he wanted to be King, and that was all-or-nothing.
I don’t think Richard ever wanted to be king. After Bishop Stillington dropped his bombshell at the Privy Council meeting, Richard, as a good Catholic, had no choice but to accept the kingship.
@@nbenefielBishop Stillington claims to eye witness on Edward IV marrying Eleanor Butler before marrying Elizabeth Woodville but the files on this marriage had never been presented
@@itachi-kun7736 Well there are the documents in a French Cathedral that seem to suggest that Edward 1Vth was himself illegitimate . Maybe Richard felt he had no choice.
@@hogwashmcturnip8930well why would richard be so comfortable in allowing Edward to rule so for so long then be totally uncomfortable with the illegitimate son taking ova nah makes no sense to me if u have not be playing be the rule for several years already why start nw 😅
@@KatyWilson-df1qw Do you Really think that? A bloke spends all his life as 2nd string to his brother, in the hope that he will become king? That is a little weird. Rather like your typing. The documents did not come to light until After Edward died? But ' Edward's own mother had made reference to him being a bastard? It is not about the brats in the tower being illegitimate ,it is about Edward IV being a result of his mother playing around with an archer while hubby was away fighting somewhere else. If you look at it That way, Richard realised he was the only Legitimate Yorkist heir left. And as such he had no reason to kill illegitimate kids of an illegitimate king. But he did have a reason to claim the throne
Being a Yorkshireman nobody ever told me the wars of the roses ever finished.
We'd properly f u up now though.
Elizabeth Wydville was my 17th great-grandmother ( I am descended from her son from her first marriage) so I take this personally . :) I have studied this for years and I am convinced that RIchard did them in.
Can I ask how did u find this out im not being rude quite the opportunity desperate to find out who my 17th 16th. Generations etc that im related to ??plz let me know
An also I to have come to this conclusion as I like u although I dnt knw for sure I just feel emmensly connected to this period this particular war aswell of the rose's the whole time an place an events feel so very personal an iv looked at this mystery of the boys an no matter which way u try an see him innocent it doesn't make sense his actions none of them lead to any sensible conclusion of richard intentinding to crown Edward the only logical explanation to
His actions when carefully looked at his malicious intent
How did you find out that you were related to the sister of the boys?
@@KatyWilson-df1qweverybody is related to her in some way - so far she has 7trillion 3billion 18 billion 7thousand 8hundred and 65 descendants- 6 more since I started typing - oops there’s another
They should really DNA test the bones in that casket.
flyinspirals I’ve been searching for them lol
They're inturned in Westminster Abbey which is holy ground & so they can not be disturbed. The Church of England will never allow them to be disturbed in order to be examined for religious reasons.
@Amethyst- You are correct in saying their would need to be Church of England approval in order to exhume the remains, and obtain what they need in order to DNA evidence. However, all that really means is that permission would be needed from the sitting Monarch, considering that the Monarch is the head of the COE. Just because Queen Elizabeth II has denied requests to obtain DNA from the remains, it doesn't mean Prince Charles or Prince William will do the same. In fact, I think that one of them will allow this to happen. The current Queen is almost from a bygone era, where things like exhuming remains and getting DNA evidence were not proper topics for discussion. There is also the issue that Richard was the last king from the House of Plantagenet, and he has living relatives. That could be a bit of a sore spot for the House of Winsor, considering that there are other living people, more closely related to the Plantagenets, Tudors, or Stuarts, than they are. Elizabeth's II's predecessor's from the German house of Hanover only got the English throne because they were Protestants. She has no desire make this a major topic. Anyways, I didn't mean to drone on, but this is complicated stuff.
@@dmgib5239 I agree, I think when Prince Charles is king he'll think about it differently. Everyone needs and wants to know if those bones belong to the princes.
I agree that they should test the remains found in the Tower, but even if they aren't the remains of the princes, that doesn't vindicate Richard. There are also some remains in York family crypts that it has been suggested might belong to the princes. To me, that better fits the scenario of this uncle who did the politically expedient thing he justified as what the realm needed but still might be troubled enough by the act to make sure the undoubted children of his brother were laid to rest with the family.
Cancer was rare in antiquity. Perhaps Edward had an infected tooth and died from infections. Henry Tudor never produced any bodies. Why? If Terrell did, what happened to the remains?
Plot twist: Buckingham rebelled against Richard just months after Richard's coronation and was beheaded because of that.
I think Richard was the master mind behind the murders of his nephews he was is the only person who had a motive that was secure his throne that how they were doing back in those days and further back in the ancient Rome and Cleopatra days if anybody was a threat or if thought you they were a threat they would kill torture and execute them in a lot cases some people were accused on speculation without any proof or forged letters that wasn't their signiture yes I still believe Richard had his nephews it killed to gain the next throne but he wasn't the only person on throne to commit vicious murders so was Henry the VIII he was just as cold heartless vicious killer too
@@darrellwheeler6088 that may be not true
@@darrellwheeler6088vicious killer? Is there any other kind ?
Starkey is always the most authoritative voice in documentaries like this.
Starkey relies largely on Thomas More's writings to prove his point. Thomas More was 5 years old in 1483...not exactly a reliable witness. Also More was writing during the reign of Henry VIII, the son of Henry VII and, of course, a Tudor. Obviously he wasn't going to annoy Henry VIII! in More's defence he was only repeating the history he'd been taught as a child. We all know history is written by the winners. Starkey is strongly biased towards the Tudors and is very foolish and arrogant in his assumptions.
@@linpollitt8950 totally agree. That was pretty obvious in this. He totally buys the Shakespeare version of Richard III. I usually like him but he is very biased in this.
it is amazing, how everything concentrates on possible evidence to convict Richard of the murder. But on the other side, everybody neglects that Henry had at least the same strong motive to get rid of the boys - and no alibi whatsoever...
Are we all victims of the Tudor propaganda, the Shakespearean Richard III?
Michael Zientkiewicz My thoughts exactly. They completely left out the theory of The Tudors themselves being the masterminds behind the death of the two princes.
Ashley Morris Because it is nonsense. The two princes were last seen in July of 1483 and at that time Buckingham was certainly not supporting Tudor. Tudor is in France with very little money and there is really no way for him or his mother to get assassins into the tower. Even if it was possible the problem would be that Tudor needs to get of rid of King Richard III and then he would need to get rid of his son and others. There is no motive really.
Kristin Harris "last seen" is not quite a synonym for dead, or is it? - Who says, the boys were killed shortly after they were last seen? Who could possibly ever prove that kind of assumption? It is plausible that the princes were still alive and kept in hiding inside the tower.
Michael Zientkiewicz Of course it is possible. Hence the speculation even after 500 years. What is clear is that people at that time believed the boys to have been murdered. and that King Richard III was behind their murder. There are written records from the time to back up this belief.
The fact that neither boy ever shows up again is a also evidence of them being murdered. Of course there is no concrete proof unless we can get DNA testing and perhaps a more precise age for the two skeletons found in the tower.
+Michael Zientkiewicz (Industriebauten) There's absolutely no evidence that the boys even died.
Unbelievable ! Margaret Beaufort (Henry Tudors mother) was not even mencioned as a suspect. Her Husband, Lord Stanley decided The Batlle of Bosworth .
+Oscar Ribeiro (Rouba79) they had all to gain should the boys be killed
+tudor chick It is easy to say that 530 years later and we know the boys murder led to Yorkist support for Henry Tudor and his eventual victory but the reality is that there is no way that Margaret Beaufort would have been able to know that would be the outcome. Ricardians like to paint her as this master manipulator but murdering the Princes in the Tower would have no obvious benefit for Margaret Beaufort or her son. She really could not predict what would happen.
+Kristin Harris There's also the fact that Edward of Middleham (Richard's son and official heir) was still alive when the princes disappeared so it would have made no sense for Margaret to kill them. Margaret was a pious and strong woman, and hardly anybody could predict that Henry would be king including her. His chances were flimsy until the princes and Edward of Middleham died.
+Charlotte Torres She is simply the most unlikely of a person. There is a reason no one accused her of any wrong doing at the time. No one would have believed it and if Richard III could have blamed a Lancastrian conspiracy for their murders he would have done so.
Kristen, she could've done it. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she's innocent.
As soon as I heard "hollywood defense attorney", all credibility was immediately lost.
My sentiments exactly!
If it makes you feel any better there is a set of video on TH-cam called the trail of king Richard it's 70ts and has historians pitting it out with real history of the man it has the historian on here as well as others and it came to the conclusion I thought it would very interesting
@@harrygallagher4125 you should look up the trail of king Richard really good
+warp9p65 No, you're wrong. There was a simulated trial of Richard III back in 1984 on Channel 4. The simulated trial followed English proceedings. A jury returned a not guilty verdict. It was easy to see that the acquittal was due to lack of concrete evidence. So the American lawyer would be right when he says he could get an acquittal for Richard III. If you can find the Trial of Richard III on TH-cam, it is well worth watching.
Spot on. To even mention a modern jury whilst commenting on a 15th century crime is ludicrous in the extreme. No wonder O J Simpson walked away a free man! However, since this "Hollywood " lawyer gave a legal opinion, has he never heard of "means, motive and opportunity?"
Who but Richard had all three ? I find it incredible that any historian or academic, (even those with a book to plug), would engage with the
romanticized revisionist garbage that seeks, via ridiculously Byzantine theories, to rehabilitate Richard's
reputation. Sometimes, the obvious
suspect is, indeed, the culprit.
The most convincing evidence that Richard III did not kill his nephews is the way he cared and protected the children around him. His illegitimate daughter and son, which he had before he married Anne Neville, lived with him and their son. Then he also brought to live with them the daughter and son of his brother George and Anne's sister Isabel when they were orphaned. He had been faithful to his brother King Edward IV all his life and had his complete trust, so how could he possibly treat specially this brother's children differently? It makes no sense!
+Violet Alexander Simple, his brother Edward was dead, he didn't really owe anymore loyalty to him, especially when his children stood in his path to the thrown. The difference with George's children is that they were further from the thrown and not as much of a threat; and they were related through his brother on one side and his wife on the other. Richard got rid of the people who tried to protect the boys, their maternal uncle and brother. The fact that the queen (dowager) feared for them, even in fear of Richard says a lot.
The others weren't heir to the throne. You never really never know anyone. Especially someone who lived in the 15th Century. It's very unlikely two healthy young boys would've died on their own and there were no plagues in England at that approximate time. Plus, they disappeared all at once. Before people saw them outside on castle grounds and then one day they were no longer there.
@@uniquesongstress Actually George's son would have been higher in the succession, had he not been attainted. As for 'protecting the boys' the Rivers were a cancer in the body politik and were, like all of the famiilies then, just in it for their own ends. They would have ruled the country from behind a little boy. They weren't protecting the boys, they were using them.
How richard treated other people does not qualify as "evidence".
How could he treat his brothers boys differently? The stood between himself and the throne.
This happened on Richard's watch, and the Lord Protector obviously did not protect them. Moreover he went out of his way to gain custody of the two young princes. He intercepted Edward V and company at Stoney Stratford, arresting those in charge of the prince, and subsequently had them beheaded at Pontefract castle. I think that demonstrates bad intent to start with.
As soon as Richard had both the young princes in the tower Edward V's coronation was postponed indefinitely, by Richard, and moves were afoot to declare Edward V illegitimate as heir to the throne based on Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, said to be illegitimate because of a pre-contract on Edward's part to marry Lady Eleanor Butler.
That Richard was moving to take the throne for himself seems obvious to me. Wicked uncles are a regular feature of medieval dynastic politics, and one can understand a noble thinking, I could bend the knee to my older brother, but never to my snotty nosed nephew!
It cannot be proven, but I believe Richard III had the two young princes, disposed of.
Your point about Richard III being the Lord Protector (and not doing so) is probably the best, least diluted point I've heard! Makes total sense; particularly that he doesn't speak of or explain their disappearance. If you want to watch something great, I suggest another YT video called "The Trial of King Richard the Third", its channel is: valentinejay. It's a trial put on by the BBC where a real judge, jury, defense, and prosecution assess (and come to a verdict) if Richard III was responsible for the Princes murders. It's like a 20 part series but they're just about 10 mins each. It's funny to see a young David Starkey bc it's from 1984, and OMG, is he ever pompous lol.
It can not be shown that it happened on Richard's watch. They were not announced to be missing until after Henry VI had assumed the crown, despite the princes' greater claim.
They may have been under his watch, but who knows if they were killed under his orders.
Wendy Hull There were quite a few judicial killings for treason, and getting parliamentary of judicial backing of you wanted to remove someone wasn't a high bar for a king. Yet Richard never requested one against the (bastard) princes. What risk did he have from such children? None, as they had already been declared illegitimate. By contrast, Henry VII was also a 'branch' of an illegitimate line, and not the most senior branch at that. Rather, he became king by' right of conquest'. If the boys were alive, he would have to kill them.
First, King Henry VII would not have to kill the Princes in the Tower. If he won the crown by right of conquest then the crown was his. For reference one would only need to look at Henry Tudor's father-in-law. He won the crown by right of conquest and left King Henry VI and his son, Edward of Westminster, alive. Tudor could also extend Titulus Regis if he were to enter London and find the two boys alive and well in the Tower. The most often repeated response to that argument is that he had promised to marry Elizabeth of York in order to gather support and he could not fulfill that promise if he maintained the act of Titulus Regis because that would in turn mean that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate as well as her two brothers. This is not a valid argument in my opinion, especially by people defending King Richard III, because King Henry VII could simply lift King Richard III's claim and make it his own. That claim of course was that "new information came to light" and therefore any oath given before that information became known is void.
Of course all of this speculation is most likely pointless. The Princes in the Tower were almost certainly murdered in the summer of 1483. Elizabeth Woodville would not have supported Henry Tudor if she believed her sons to be alive but the most damning evidence for the two princes being murdered in the summer of 1483 is that King Richard III never even attempts to show the two boys as alive and well after the summer of 1483. If King Richard III could have produced the two boys as alive and well he would have done so in order to avoid rebellion. The first rebellion was in the fall of 1483. He could have prevented this rebellion, bloodshed and a loss of support by simply allowing the two boys to be seen. He was not able to do that. These are just the two most obvious problems. There are so many others....
How I like Tom Bacon as King Richard III...omg 😍😍😍
Oh My Goooooood!!!Do You Fancy Richard!!!!💯🥰😛😍🤣🥳
I have always looked at it as, regardless of who did what to whom, or why, it seems the boys disappeared on Richard's watch, so to speak. If the children were plotted against, simply not guarded adequately, or even died of common illness, it happened on Richard's watch. When you are in authority, the buck stops with you, whether you are involved or not.
That is saying that a Policeman is guilty of robbery because he couldn't stop the actual criminal from committing the crime. You would blame the cop because he was unable or couldn't stop the criminals?
No, but if the offenders died while in custody, then someone was careless. People in authority cannot afford carelessness. I worked with a lot of military officers in days gone by, and they taught me that.
kennashan And they must taught that to always backup someone else that screw up and killed a civilian, because that what the military always does, always covering their backs of each other, not matter how much innocent people they kill or how many people they torture.
+kennashan I can refute your weak argument by quoting George Bernard Shaw: "There can be no guilt without intent." Get it? No guilt without intent.
Whether or not Richard killed the boys, he was in charge of them. Their mother was in sanctuary, and he was their nearest adult male relative, so he should have protected them to the best of his ability. Apparently he did not.
Come on... sometimes the most simple answer is the one you have to pick... Richard may not be the ugly evil hunchback that Shakespeare describes, but, obviously, he did it... he killed the boys... that´s how it was done back then... coup, after coup, after coup... just like Edward IV did to Henry VI, Richard did to the heirs to the throne... it´s amazing how Richard III´s fans try so desperately to find escuses for him not to be the prince´s murderer... he was the man who would gain the most if the princes got killed...
Why is it so obvious? Where's the evidence? There is NO evidence
Julia Sardinha You expressed my thoughts about this gloomy affair. Of all “candidates” Richard is definitely the most likely one... and those who try to defend him sound too biased to be taken seriously. The fact that Richard carried out several useful reforms and may have been a capable ruler doesn’t obliterate his ignoble behaviour towards his nephews.
@12345grov i know It by now....this comment was written a few years ago... But again... He's being or not a hunchback is Just a medical condition that solely has nothing to do with being evil like Shakespeare portraits him. The truth is that anyone who had a drop of Royal blood back then was an evident treat to who had the means to keep power. The boys Just had to Go... It's almost "objective"... Almost "business"... Unfortunately...
Aren't their spirits still haunting the tower, though!?
NeoDanomaru lol dat shit is mumbo jumbo
NON-BELIEVER!!!
No
Yeah sure. Just need an ouija board and some gullible people.
When they removed the bones the haunting stopped silly. It’s well know that when you lay a body to Reverend rest it goes to the beyond.
What isn't talked about here is the imprisoning of the princes' cousin, the son of Edward the 4th's brother George. He was sent to the tower at the age of 10 and kept there until his death at the age of 27. It was Henry 7th who had him killed at a mock trial coz he was the rightful king and a threat to him. If Edwards 4th's children were illegitimate George's son certainly wasn't .
When George was convicted of treason his children were disinherited from any title and his son from ever being able to take the crown. it was just that Edward's two sons were gone and Richard's son died so Edward, Earl of Warwick was the only male heir to the York throne so he was a threat to Henry Tudor.
@@janefelix3821 Where there is a claim, there is a threat. Teddy Warwick Earl Warwick is a male and could lead an army in theory. In reality Teddy Warwick was a little boy whose parents were dead and his sister was a just a teenager. They both ended up being beheaded in the end because they had Plantagenet blood meaning they had a stronger claim to the throne than the Tudors.
@@AnnaBellaChannel Teddy's sister was executed 42 years later by Henry VIII at the age of 67. By that point in her life, she was not going to produce heirs and already had children so her execution had nothing to do with ending the bloodline. The Tudor line was well established and had a male heir (the future Edward VI), plus there was talk about removing the restrictions on a female becoming a monarch, which they did, and that allowed Mary I and Elizabeth I to ultimately become Queen Regnants.
@janefelix3821 Yes, it was about ending the Plantagenet bloodline & and their claim to the throne. Henry VIII was angry because Margaret Pole took Catherine of Argon's side in The King's Great Matter, as she was a supporter of his daughter Mary. Plus her son Reginald Pole (12 March 1500 - 17 November 1558) was an English cardinal of the Catholic Church and the last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury, holding the office from 1556 to 1558, during the Counter-Reformation. So Henry VIII could not execute him. So he executed her, 1 of her other sons and her 10 year old grandson for good measure. The Plantagenet's were still a threat to Henry VIII as he only had one male heir, Edward, and two daughters whom Henry VIII had removed from the succession until he put them back in the succession in his will. The Tudor Monarchy could have collapsed under Henry VIII.
thanks for pointing out that Henry VII's imprisonment of Edward for 17 years followed by execution as an adult was likely more cruel than Richard's dispatching of the princes. all these men, especially Henry VIII, were totally evil and vile.
An incorrupt bishop is almost as rare as an incorrupt defense attorney.
I'm baffled by the Ricardian apologists who all these centuries later are twisting themselves in knots to come up with alternatives to a king having dispatched his nephews to take the crown. It even kind of makes sense that he could convince himself he was doing it for the good of England, as the Wars of the Roses had been fought because of very similar circumstances, with a weak king who first needed a regent because he was an infant and then lost his mind and left his strong queen in charge. One could see Richard surveying the situation after Edward's death and forgive him for seeing similarities to what had plunged England into a long and bloody civil war that he had no intention of repeating. I also think it makes sense that he maybe didn't plan all along to become a usurper, but rather started something with one vision in his head that ended up in the horrible event we see as inevitable looking back on it in a way he did not expect as it was occurring, realizing too late what he was going to have to do to those poor boys. Yet to dismiss entirely the ONE person who benefited most from the deaths and had the motive, means, and opportunity to get them done would have done just that--I just don't get it. If the boys were ill and passed away of natural causes, he would have shouted it from the rooftops, as that would have made him the right and legitimate heir. (Queens ruling in their own right wasn't happening yet, so Edward's daughters would have counted little in the equation.) As a historian, I get that the proof isn't completely there as far as a smoking gun and confession, but there's enough to show Richard for what he was. That might not have been a crippled, twisted, evil monster, but a murderous man convincing himself he was doing all for the right of England and so that his brother's wicked wife and family didn't get their clutches on the throne. It's time to face reality on that score, and, while quite interesting and a boon to scholarship, finding his murderous skeleton in a carpark doesn't change any of the history in which Richard was involved, including some kind of culpability for the cruel end his nephews met.
Calling a medieval king murderous with no proof whatsoever is uncalled for. A suspect, perhaps, as were several others suspect. An historical tragedy with long vanished clues.
@@ellenyoung8283 I'm a historian with summa cum laude degrees and well aware his fellow medieval kings and assorted royals/nobles said it. Buckingham's head at trial might have said it, too, although that is speculation. Yet while you're trying to project our legal standards backwards with this "suspect" business (what, no "person of interest"?), I know by THEIR standards it was NOT a lawful execution for treason when Henry Stafford's head popped off. Even IF you want some happy fantasy about Richard III as an uncle and ruler or some more precise use of terminology from the modern legal system, I know he was breaking the very medieval codes you're suggesting should shield HIM by the standards of the day before subbing a modern ethos over MY judgment--standard Ricardian obfuscation! I'll stick by that adjective and affirm the sentiment based on Stafford alone.
@@ellenyoung8283uncalled for? Review the timeline.
I believe you’re probably correct. I think Richard was a loyal Yorkist. I think it was kill or be killed. I think one bad decision led to the next.
This helped me with my school work about princes in the tower thank u
Edward is so cute! I think I have a crush
He is 12 you know are you 12
@@emilian7052 I suppose in fairness the true Edward V is 540 years dead whether he died in that tower or not.
@emilian7052 Edward is an adorable 12 year old. I think the crush comment was a joke 😅
When they uncovered the skeleton of Richard III they were able to prove it was him by doing a DNA with a family member. Why not do the same of the remains of Edward V and his brother.
sam kohen: If the bones in Westminster Abbey turned-out not to have any connection with Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York, then that will have created a problem for the House of Windsor. In any event, Queen Elizabeth II won't allow the bones to be tested because Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar responsible directly to the monarch.
@@anghinetti Not a real answer, more like a coverup
DNA 🧬 degrades over time & after 500+ years, there's probably nothing left that scientists could use.
"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York"
Wow, that's really good! Did you write it?
A horse a horse, a kingdom for a horse
great program, my favorite period in history but why has no-one thought of the Lady Margarite Beoufort? She had every reason also to want the two Princes dead or at least removed in some way. She could see I think what Richard was possibly, probably going to do reguarding the throne and if she gave an order to have the Princes killed via also her third husband, Sir Thomas Stanley who was in Richard's inner circle, then she could muster her son, Henry Tudor to fight Richard and win the throne of England. Margert Beoufort had spent at that point nearly 28 years waiting on the sidelines - always waiting for the right moment and opportunity to put her son on the throne. However those two Princes still had to be removed in order for any of her planning and quiet schemeing to happen - just every bit as much, for his own reasons that Richard also needed them gone. Plus we know there was an awful lot of Tudor properganda after Henry Tudor took the throne of England, of course the Tudors were going to make Richard as much of a villan as possible and throw the blame as far away from them as they could. So I say Lady Margarite Beuofort was a good contender for murdering the princes and one who has been completely overlooked most of the time when this comes up.
Her name does get thrown in the ring a lot but I think given that she was under house arrest at the time, I don't think she had the means. Doesn't mean it was impossible though.
I did
Beaufort did not have the opportunity. Also, the possibility of her son taking the throne was very distant. Beaufort was also communicating with the boys' mother through messages delivered by a shared doctor.
Hopefully when the current Queen passes on, legislation can be passed to have the DNA tested. Because there's so many people who want to know. Actually, we all need to know the truth! Stop concealing what the public should know!
He did it...and more. No wonder karma caught up with him so swiftly...and left his bones to be driven over and stepped on for centuries.
I've always been convinced Richard did it
on what evidence?
@@louisavondart9178 based on him being in charge of the boys , the tower, the city, the nation at the time , based on there being 2 attempts at freeing the boys by revolutionary civil war , many people were killed , by making those two disapear Richard saved thousands of lives , Richard did the right thing as grim as that might seem , rulers have to think about the greater good in times of crisis, the kid's mother , his brothers widow whom killed his brother George was trying to kill him , it was chaos , Richard looked for a safe fast way to create stability , I'm s supporter of Richard I'm not slandering him 👍
@@hypatiastanhope4716 ... Buckingham had more of a motive. Richard had made a vow in public to protect the heir to the throne and people took that shite seriously in those days. Buckingham needs to be looked at very closely.
He Looks EVIL!!!
Me too .
My guess is the butler in the tower with the mace.
miklas1911 cluedo
No, it was Colonel Mustard.
It's always the butler.
This comment.
Its always the butler isn't it? ;)
I'm so glad they had such an handsome actor playing Richard III. I have always loved Shakespeare's play, but King Richard is not always portrayed as a handsome man... Why not? His brother was handsome?
Richard was better.looking than Edward IV....but he was still probably guilty of killing him.
Edward IV's portrait does not look handsome at all. Clarence seems better looking though.
Edward IV had little piggy eyes, just like his grandson Henry VIII.
@@LyricalXilence Don’t you mean Edward V, Edward 1V was Richard’s brother.
They chose Harry Lloyd to portray Richard III in, "The Lost King." A handsome actor.
my opinion: at the end of the day.......we will never know who murdered those young boys, It's just very tragic that who ever killed them was willing to perform such an act on 2 small children...royal or not!!
No acquittals for Richard! He had means, motive and possession of the persons! Has only to do with necessity! You can't keep the king you are usurping alive, doesn't work. I think once he took the Uncle and half Brother of the King, then goes and tells his baby king "no worries these guys who raised you have to go"! How much time do you think Richard has when his nephew reaches majority, is the King gonna just say "No worries I hardly even missed my family" or is he gonna give Richard the Lord Hastings treatment!
I think that they forgot one other suspect in this mystery... Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby... The mother of Henry VII... At that point Elizabeth Woodville, who I'm sure was desperate to rescue her sons, decided to join up with Margaret and Buckingham in order to carry out this "rescue"... Margaret obviously had a stake in the princes' lives as she tirelessly campaigned for her son to become king.. Henry Tudor's claim to the crown was very weak at best... So in order for him to claim his place/throne they needed to make sure nobody else had a stronger claim to it.. Even though the sons of Edward and Woodville might have been declared illegitimate, this could have been disputed and it was all too possible that they could have had their legitimacy back... The young princes' were a threat to her son, Henry Tudor's, being crowned... So why not act as if though she was genuinely wanting to rescue the princes, her and Buckingham might have used this to murder those boys and it was easy for them to pin that on Richard III... Then when all hope was lost for Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret suggested that her son, weak, ugly usurper, marries her beautiful (and fertile- if she was like her mother at all) daughter, which then helps their future children's claim to the throne... I've always thought that Margaret had some sort of responsibility for the princes' disappearance... She conspired and did EVERYTHING in her power to make sure that Henry became the king of England, like the vision she had long time ago.. Her only son (as she was barron after giving birth to Henry at a young age) becoming king is what drove her to marrying specific men- for their title and money which would fund Henry's exile in France and then the revolution, which they won in part to the soldiers provided by France, in which they promised so much that his reign started off in debt to France.. Without her Henry Tudor had no chance in hell to be Henry VII
There are so many problems with this theory. First is that Margaret Beaufort did not campaign tirelessly for her son to be King of England. Margaret Beaufort only campaigned on behalf of Henry Tudor to be allowed to return to England and claim his title as Earl of Richmond for most of the reign of King Edward IV. She also suggested a marriage between her son Henry and the Princess Elizabeth prior to the death of King Edward IV and the King considered it. We do actually know the truth of what Margaret Beaufort was trying to accomplish at the time of the death of King Edward IV. It would have been so completely impossible and outright ridiculous for her to be plotting to put her son on the throne of England. This is modern day Ricardian propaganda. Beaufort would not only have to somehow murder both Edward V and his brother Prince Richard he would then somehow need to kill Edward of Middleham and then finally King Richard III. She would have to find a way to get the assassin into the Tower of London and risk him being caught and implicating her. Why would she do that? They have been declared illegitimate. Murdering two boys who are supposedly no threat to King Richard III because of their illegitimacy makes even less sense for Beaufort to murder them. If the two Princes being declared legitimate at a later time was a a possibility for Henry VII then it would most certainly be a problem for Richard III and his heir Edward of Middleham.
The fact is that any problem(or solution to that problem) that people try to pin on Beaufort or Tudor is really intertwined with Richard III. If the two Princes are not threat to Richard III they are no threat to King Henry VII. If they are a threat to a future ruling King of England then in truth they are indeed a threat to Richard III himself and the implication for motivation against Tudor fits Richard III just the same if not better.
If the Princes in the Tower could inspire rebellion and be able to overturn Titulus Regis then they were a threat to Richard III and a future reign of Edward of Middleham more so than anyone else.
Henry Tudor only becomes the focus of a rebellion once the Duke of Buckingham becomes involved in the conspiracy. The supporters of King Edward V attempt to break him and his brother out of the Tower in late July. No one ever sees them again. Another attempt is being planned when Buckingham becomes involved. It is most likely Buckingham that tells the supporters of Edward V that he and his brother Richard are dead and only then is there a focus on Henry Tudor. This happens very quickly and it is not a well-planned rebellion that has been brewing for years. People are quickly uprooted and flee to Brittany. If Beaufort's plan is to murder the Princes in the Tower and thus cause an uprising in response to their murder then it has to happen in the summer of 1483 and there is no way anyone is getting in to the Tower of London and anywhere close to the two Princes. These were two princes who were very easily deposed by King Richard III. There is no way of knowing that their murder would inspire a rebellion. IN fact it may not have inspired a rebellion without the Duke of Buckingham's involvement and we know that he was firmly in the camp of Richard III until September of 1483. Beaufort's husband does not side with Buckingham and it is not a planned rebellion like what happens in 1485. It is quick, emotional in response and a disaster and the reality is that Buckingham's involvement may have nothing to do with the murder of the Princes but some unknown issue between him and King Richard III. Although murdering the two princes may have angered Buckingham and led to revolt but this is not clear at all.
perfectly stated. Conclusive argument IMHO, though I suppose there will always be those who want so badly for it to not be true as to convince themselves of other possibilities. I read a book about Richard awhile back and he really came off as a sober administrator and loyal brother, and a genuinely likable person, however, it is clear for so many reasons they were killed by his orders. Nothing else makes sense.
Josie Farnam Edward and Richard, died before Henry Tudor was crowned in 1485
The last part was interesting, but Henry VII's presence at James Tyrel's trial might imply something quite different. Maybe if he could bribe Tyrel to blame King Richard, Henry Tudor would be in the clear, in case he had something to do with it or it was done with his knowledge.
Buckingham was closer to the throne then Henry VII.
I was at the Tower of London last month and they showed in the Bloody Tower this small film that suggests heavily that Richard killed them. I could hear a woman whisper to her children that the evil uncle killed the two boys.
I spoke with a warden about this, a bit upset and he too said: It's never been proven, it's a mystery of the Tower.
People have been found guilty on less evidence. Means motive and malice , Richard had all three.
Elizabeth Woodville was a commoner? That's news to me, she was a daughter of gentleman.
+David Hutchinson Not a commoner--- mid-level aristrocracy. Not fit for a King, under normal circumstances.
Plus she wasn't the foreign princess the nobles wanted
For anybody in the Royal family back then and even now whoever isnt from a Royal house or a recent descendent of Royalty is considered a commoner. Lady Diana Spencer was consider a commoner even though she came from a prominent aristocratic house and family.
Her mother brought the royal blood. Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, was the daughter of the Count of St. Pol, and the widow of Henry V's brother, the Duke of Bedford. She was the highest ranking woman in Henry VI's court after Margaret of Anjou. She was related to the Holy Roman Emperor, a descendant of Charlemagne and carried Plantagenet blood to boot. Elizabeth's father was of middle rank.
Elizabeth Woodville is a great grandmother of mine. It's interesting learning about the history of England. However, this cold case is chilling knowing that the Princes are great uncles of mine...
I really can't understand why everyone act like richard was a maquiavelic and manipulative. For me he is more like an pawn in the Buckingham' s game.
Henry VII made a career out of killing off his wife's relatives. I'm of the opinion that it was Henry VII, or someone very close to him, had these boys murdered. IF Edward V was still alive at the time of the death of Richard III, then Henry VII would have been forced to proclaim him king.
Two of his wards disappeared and he produced not a word in his defence. My God, how can anyone not call that murder.
Perhaps he did not at the time deem the accusations worthy of a response and he was king, no one can judge him except God during those times.
That king Richard’s actor does a great job gapping like a newt out of water
💯🥰😛🤣🤣🤣
I started to watch the White Queen, and I paid a particular attention to Margaret Beaufort, so I did a little bit of research, and I think because she was very ambitious for her and her son Henri Tudor VII, she is the one that murdered the princes and not Richard III, anyway that is my opinion...
the question is, did they even die in the tower.
Paul Lowe surely they had never been alive after August/ September 1483. They withdrew into the Tower and vanished. Had one or both died, possibly of natural death, Richard III wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to show them and explain they had died - for example- of smallpox or pneumonia. He didn’t.
Matter of fact, after the sudden bastardisasating of Edward V and Richard duke of York, never Richard III had them mentioned. Ever.
Curious, indeed.
Yes
@@AnnaBellaChannel - They found bodies of 2 kids. In the walls. But they will NOT test them. I wish they would. It would be interesting to find out. If they're the princes or not. So it can finally be closed.
@@ravenmaclennan3512 They moved the two boys' bodies to Westminster Abbey and there they will stay. www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under
I think they did. But even if Richard was the culprit, he met justice not too long after.....on top of being found under a parking lot years later.
Richard gave his country drama.
@28:54 Small example of the absolute brilliance of Dr. David Starkey. The way he does the whole "If? If? NO IFS!" is marvelous. He's my favorite historian, hands down.
No: whoever convinced Buckingham, could have convinced Richard's guy. That's what they always do -- get more people on your side and the power shifts. Otherwise, it doesn't. Henry the 7th could have never won at the battle of Bosworth -- he won because so many people changed sides. Look at how they skip over the FEMALES! Phillipa nailed it. It was common for the mother of the heir to be regent - it made sense. There's only evidence against the fact that Elizabeth was "power hungry"
I want to share my theory. I believe Richard was loyal to his brother Edward iv. But when Edward kill their brother George because he conspired against Edward everything change, Richard was angry and left from court to the north for many years. Also there were rumors that the Woodvilles wanted George dead as well. So when Edward died and name Richard lord protector of the young king it was clear that the game for power was between Richard vs Woodvilles. Elizabeth Woodville wanted to crown her son without Richard present why? And when Richard took the Young Edward under his protection she and the rest of her children ask the church for sanctuary again why? It is clear that she didn't like him. When Richard brought young Edward to the town of London to prepare for his coronation his mother was still in the church. Also Richard killed without a trial her eldest son from her first marriage and her brother, gaurdians of her son. Richard knew that when his nephew becomes king the Woodvilles will eventually kill him to in order to have the whole power. This is the reason he took the crown and lock the princes in the tower and declare them illigitimate. Also the excuse some people here say that Richard didn't have a reason to kill the boys because they were illigitimate now is bullshit besause the people of London loved the sons of Edward, some nobles tried to rescue the princes from the tower and I am sure Richard remembered very well what happened when you leave an alive king ( Henry vi) in the tower. If Buckingham was responsible for their deaths Richard would have said something but he didn't. In the end karma hit him hard in two years he lost his son, wife and his life. The woodviles also lost because even thought Henry vii marry Elizabeth of york they didn't have power anymore. " When you play the game of thrones you win or you die" lol.
Bullshit, I can't say it enough Richard had means motive and malice. All his actions are to get the throne. He had those boys murdered, there is no doubt.
Thanks for uploading this program.
I think I that it was Henry V11 mother that had the two princes murdered. She had a very good reason to want them dead. Richard 3rd was their uncle and crowned himself king but he didn't want them dead. In 1674 two skeletons were found under the staircase in the tower of London and then in 1933 the skeletons were examined and it was concluded that they were of two boys of 12 yrs and 10yrs.
Yes but it wasn't confirmed they were the princes
@@56beverley 100% They were confrimed to be two skeletons of two male children that is all.
May the brothers REST IN PEACE May God. Give them JUSTICE for the murder of two innocent precious boys. They didn't just disappear they were killed.
I want to know why the bones found in the tower were not DNA tested?
Barbara Ludden because they need Queen Elizabeth II permission to do so..She hasn't yet..
Since she claims her throne threw the Tudor line, it wouldn't pay to find all the commoners in the wood shed. However I doubt it makes much difference. The throne came to the Tudors by war, what ever royal bloodline they were or were not a part of. In that time might made right and its a bit late for a paternity test. I don't see it changing any thing at this point. Fortune Favors the wealthy and the ruthless, say what you will the Tudors were that.
Barbara Ludden I'm pretty sure the current queens bloodline is not actually broken as she is both a descendant of the Plantagenet and Tudor claimants to the throne and would be Queen regardless of who had won at Bosworth? it was certainly not in the interest of the Tudors to find out whom the bones belonged to, ruthless indeed.
If fortune favored the wealthy and ruthless then Richard III would have won the battle of Bosworth Field.
I was thinking in comparison to thew common folk, compared to then all the nobles were wealthy. Even if some were richer than others besides neither Henry nor Richard were on the field alone in pitch battle you have to consider the recourses at there command not just there own. Any way I wish the bones would have been subjected to a full forensic exam and DNA. Give the boys back there name, and find out what happened to them.
How much torture had Tyrell been subjected to?
Tyrell???
Tyrell was the guy hired by Richard III to smother the boys. This was in Shakespeare's "Richard III" I don't know if he actually existed. Much of the so called 'history' of Richard III is coming from Shakespeare who was NOT a historian, but a playwright. No where in "Richard III" is any mention made that Tyrell was tortured. He enters the play, does the job, and is gone.
@@michelleblanchard9434 utter rubbish Margret Beaufort and her husband just so happens to be the man to betray Richard
@@michelleblanchard9434 Yes, James Tyrell was a rela person. I'm a descendant of his. .. He confessed to killing the boys which was probably the inspiration for Shakespeare's play
They aren't dead, I saw them this morning.
@@tonysadler5290 they used to, but a week ago they phoned me to tell me that they moved to Turkmenistan to open a Mexican sushi bar, but I'm kind of mad at them since they ate my grandmas right foot
They're backup singers for Elvis who opened at Caesar's Palace last week.
Lets be clear on one thing. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest evidentiary standard in the American court system. Just because a jury can't meet that standard does not mean the defendant is not guilty.
Jimmy King If you want to really use the court system - in this case, it wouldn't even gotten to the murder trial, since there are no bodies, no witnesses, no proof of what even happened to the missing persons, no official accusation ever... only suspicion and gossip.
Jimmy King Yeah OJ!
What does fucking OJ Simpson have to do with Richard lll? That was 20 years ago and they have proof. Richard lll and the princes in the tower were 500 years ago with no evidence of anything.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is an artificial standard created by the law. It really has nothing to do with guilt or innocence , but rather evidence and nothing more.
It's not really "artificial." There has to be some standard for weighing evidence. That said, the attorney's observation that he could get an acquittal for Richard is meaningless. Under reasonable doubt -- with no undisputed bodies, no murder weapon, no signed confessions, no eyewitness testimonies under oath, and no signed documents commanding the crime -- _every_ suspect would be acquitted.
Now is the winter of our discontent.
A line he never said
In real life he didn't and he didn't say "My kingdom for a horse." either.
Richard did it
There are two great suspects to me. Richard and Beaufort
It's curious there was no mention of Bishop Morton, a major character in the story.
The standard of guilt the rich lawyer mentions ('beyond a reasonable doubt') did not exist during the lifetime of the murderer Richard III. 500 years on, it is beyond question: Richard III killed his nephews, the eldest of which was the rightful King of England.
Actually no, rich lawyers had judge Richard III back in the 90' and he was declared not guilty, if you base all your arguments in rumours you wont get anywhere, but well, that what happen when you base all your argument in Tudor propaganda.
I’m just throwing this out for consideration. Lord Buckingham looks an awful lot like the Grinch who stole Christmas.
RIP Dr. John Ashdown-Hill.
Let's be honest. Regardless of who killed the princes in the tower, the Yorkists defeated themselves by splitting into multiple factions and fighting among each other. Everyone had political motives and were bent on gain. Everyone is striving for power and manipulation--and the two boys in the tower are surrounded by wolves and often get portrayed as lambs. The question of which wolf killed them being the only thing left a question. I actually like that this documentary went out of its way to show that at least Edward V wasn't so much a lamb as might have been thought. That he had a bit of spark and potential to him.
I find it rather interesting further that a major percentage of the aristocracy turned out to defend Edward IV early on in the Wars of the Roses, but about 20 years later, that percentage has dropped significantly (and I'm not just talking about the number of men--which I expect to be smaller after a period of on again off again war--but simply the number of families supporting the Yorkist is a much smaller percentage of the families available--then again Richard might have thought that he didn't need a big army to show his support--in which case Richard loses because he underestimated Henry VII). Part of this can be taken to the fact that , but also that the Yorkists as they fought among each other soon began to become rather unpopular themselves. Then there's messing with the holy grail of Medieval laws that comes into play: inheritance laws. Both Richard and his brother George eagerly sank their teeth into their mother-in-law's inheritance (considering both brothers married two sisters--the heiresses to Warwick's fortune) that were hers and hers alone. However through some amazing legal loopholes that they exploited, they managed to have her declared legally "dead" so that they could get the incomes of those lands that were hers by rights to come to them through their wives. And then they proceeded to fight and argue with each other over how much of those inheritances each got in turn. George comes out looking just as bad as Richard does, equally. To be fair, the Medieval era was just as litigious an era full of people suing one another over the slightest things like modern America. It's rather funny that a similar kind of "legal loophole" pops up for Richard III to take advantage of with regards to Edward IV's children. Whether or not it was genuine or not is irrelevant IMO, because what matters more is whether or not people perceive it to be genuine or not. And how they react to that. Richard III accumulates power by exploiting legal loopholes before his marriage, he rises to the throne on one. Perhaps, while the aristocracy knew it was legal, they now have a nagging question and a reminder of that earlier legal battle Richard III had with George over their mother-in-law's property. That reminds them of the inheritance law issues.
Richard II overturned inheritance laws, and he had the entire nobility turn against him, putting the Lancasters on the throne in the first place. This shows that one does not mess with inheritance laws and not have it be considered a big deal. England got rid of a King for this reason (it being the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to Richard II). The nobles watched as the House of York exploited legal loopholes and then fought with each other over who got what. None of them come out looking rather good in that, and suddenly that firm idea that your children could inherit your property or that your widow might be secure after your death is thrown up into the air. After all, the King used these loopholes--who's to say anyone else can't as well? Is it any wonder that a smaller force turned out to defend Richard at Bosworth? I'm not surprised. Technically it's voting with one's feet in that case.
Add in the infighting on the Yorkist side (George vs his brothers; Woodvilles vs Richard; etc.), Buckingham's rebellion, and Henry VII got incredibly lucky. And I can hardly see it as anything more than luck. And it really shows how bad the state of affairs of a nation are if the son of a bastard line--who through his grandmother has more claim to the French throne than the English throne--manages to gather together enough support to take out the sitting ruler. It also says something if that King's showing to defend his crown was anemic (especially compared to the number of families that showed up at the beginning of the war).
Truth be told, holding Medieval aristocrats to the standards of morality of 20th or 21st century persons is ridiculous. None of the people involved are total saints, nor are they wicked demons either. They're morally complex individuals all playing for as much power as they can hold, which was simply the status quo of the era.
Personally I think +Kristin Harris has a great point about Richard, after Buckhingham's rebellion giving a pilgrimage to Canterbury. Added to that the Woodville-Yorkists defecting to Tudor (they never would have done that if they believed Edward V was still alive), and you have a strong case that Buckingham got someone to do this for him, if not did it himself, under the assumption that it would "please" Richard or help Buckingham himself on the way to the throne.
I also agree that Margaret Beaufort makes far less sense considering Richard's son is still alive, and he'd be a greater threat than the Princes in the Tower would, and the fact that Stanley himself doesn't become Constable of the Tower until after Buckingham's rebellion makes it less likely, and the point that if Richard III could pin the blame on a Lancastrian conspiracy--he would have is an excellent point.
After all, say that Richard III returns from the North and discovers that his lackeys while he was away had done such a thing. What exactly do you do in such a situation? You punish the lackeys and you try and distance yourself from them, obviously. Then there's the problem of whether or not to admit to the boys being dead. This is where such a theory gets tricky. If they're alive--why not quash the rumors by having the boys appear at mass under guard, like Henry VII did with Edward, the Earl of Warwick? If they're dead and Buckingham completely guilty of the crime--why not include that in his list of offenses and give the bodies a Christian burial? But then there's the issue that the ones who killed him were your lackeys, and you're claiming they acted without your orders. That's tough for anyone to swallow and it's completely untenable a position to be in as it shows you can't keep your lackeys in control? Why you must be a weak ruler then. Richard III completely looses his authority if he publicly admits his lackeys killed the Princes not on his authority. The only reason for Richard to behave in such a way where he neither confirms nor denies their deaths is if the boys died and he knew he couldn't completely wipe his hands clean of the affair entirely, hence his seeking pilgrimage at Canterbury--perhaps even spiritual guidance on the matter.
It's fun to speculate, but that's all these programs ever will be. We can guess with different details--but overall it's remained a mystery this long, it will likely remain a mystery further. And quite frankly I think more people would prefer it that way as it would ruin all the fun out of the mystery to have the definitive answer--and probably most people wouldn't believe it anyway.
Yeah, but families separating into factions was common then. Also, the Yorkists downfall didn't occur until the Woodvilles and the Nevilles showed up and took some control. They weren't the only ones to cause their end.
Salamon2 wow
And it just so happens to be Margret Beauford husband to betray Richard never?
Well that was a short essay.
Richard III had a larger army than Henry at Bosworth. Apparently the problem was Richard III went after Henry literally on the field, only to be outnumbered personally.
Richard II was ruling without a council of regents at the age of 13. Edward VI was chafing against his regents to rule in his own right by the time he died at age 15. So why was it necessary for Edward V to have a regent at age 12?
This documentary forgot to mention something important: Edward IV was born out of wedlock. His mother had an affair (she admitted it twice). That meant he couldn't legally be king and none of his children could be king or queen either. Richard III and his other siblings took after their father (Richard looked a lot like his father) and their older brother was over 6 feet tall. When Edward was conceived his alleged father was away fighting a war. And of course Henry Tudor had no claim to the throne himself, and like his mother and the Woodvilles was power hungry.
Richard the lll had the means, motive and malice to commit the murders of the 2 prince's. He demanded that their mother turn them over to him for protection and then all of a sudden they disappear. If I was on the jury I would convict without the bodies and weapon. He wanted the throne very badly. He was a cold blooded murderer. There is no one else that could have done it . He had those boys put in the tower. Sorry to all the supporters of Richard but he had them killed. He may not have done it himself but he had it done.
Ok, let's say that Richard did escape. Then whose is the second child skeleton that was found in the tower?
Scorpion Flower The conspiracy theory is that Elizabeth Woodville sent the real Richard away in secret and sent a peasant boy to the tower in his place
oh yes, I forgot about the peasant boy... what an irony would be if that pretender was really Elizabeth's son
I know, right? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know.
They could've been anyone's bones, espcially if they're from the Roman period.
@@idontgiveafaboutyou
That is what I was taught, that they had been Romans.
Thomas More was only 4 years old when the princes disappeared in 1483. Shakespeare wasn't born until 1564.
The simplest explanation tends to be the best one. Who benefited the most from their deaths? Richard III. The concrete evidence may not be there but the circumstantial evidence is obvious.
True.
...FURTHERMORE - EVEN IF they died "simply" of some sort of disease...then everybody would STILL blame Richard!...They were in HIS hands and the true motives of their deaths doesn't matter, as much as the fact that HE - RICHARD - WAS RESPONSIBLE for them. It is also true that, had the Princes survived Richard's reign, what would have Henry Tudor do with them??...
Wasn't it a "PARTICULARLY GOOD SET COINCIDENCES" that both the Princes die, and then the last contendant to the throne which is Richard himself, after having lost the Battle Of Bosworth Field (thanks to TREACHERY, rather than any "lack of military skills") is KILLED and ...a "MIRACLE OCCURS" - LOOK AT THAT! - Henry comes out as as King, while Richard is blamed for the death of the children.
Let me tell you this! I've NEVER SEEN a POLITICAL FIGURE SO DAMN "LUCKY"!... :D :D
Don't forget: Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, sister of the princes. Thus ending the Wars of the Roses. At the end of the day, who really benefitted the most?
Bella Jam who says Richard was disabled? Oh right, Shakespear who supported the Tudors. Richard was actually a great soldier and fought in the war of the roses
Jazzy Paterson Richard's grave was discovered in England, in September 2012. After genetic and anthropology testing was complete it was confirmed he had disabilities . en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England
I believe that it was Henry VII's mother (Margaret Beaufort) so she could put her son and grandson, Henry VIII on the throne. Hence, the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty.
Searia Kett when the boys disappeared in late summer 1483, Richard III had at least one legitimate son. Edward of Middleham. He was aged about 8-9 years old. He was his father heir presumptive. So, why should Lady Margaret have had the boys murdered if the was another, different, heir to the throne?
And by which means?
Henry V I I?
How would Margaret know about him, considering that her son wasn't even married at the time of the disappearance of the Princes?
It will never be known for sure.
Who benefits from the Princes' death/ disappearance? Henry Tudor, otherwise the public wouldn't be so willing to accept him. Richard III knew that the Princes claim to the throne was not legitimate, their father was suspected to be illegitimate therefore making their claim invalid. With the Princes still on the scene Henry Tudor would have felt threatened, so getting rid of them and blaming Richard was the easiest option. Especially when you have others willing to help you discredit his name.
❤️ Shaun Dooley’s voice x
So, my questions are: 1. Why didn't Elizabeth Woodville leave Sanctuary with her younger son and daughters in 1483 instead of staying there as long as she did? She hadn't been in danger of arrest, so what was she in sanctuary for? She could have left as soon as her elder son arrived in London. 2. Why wasn't Sir James Tyrrell, and the other men his supposed confession said committed the murders, put on trial for regicide? 3. Why didn't Henry VII formally accuse Richard III of having his nephews killed when he put out his attainder against the previous king?
Roslyn Brown I can only help with Elizabeth Woodville, she entered sanctuary when she learned Richard and not her brother had brought her son to London, she knew she'd never even get to her son. And back then escaping London was virtually impossible for her with Richards men there, sanctuary was the only place she could pretend to be safe. If you research church sources about her time there you learn it's actually the arch bishop of Canterbury and not the Duke who convinced her to give up her younger son. It's a sad fact but after her husband's death and her brother's arrest she had no power whatsoever, she was a woman with no help, especially since she wasn't a foreign princess with clout (ex: Katherine of Aragon) . Hope that helps!
Those dear, darling boys.
I can usually stomach Starkey because I've gotten used to him and I'm aware of his bias, but any documentary that actually uses Philippa Gregory as a serious source is a joke itself. She fancies herself a historian, but she's a hack who managed to bullshit her way to a Ph.D. Embarrassing.
+Christina Volkoff And her PhD is in 18th century Literature, not 15th century History. She has a Bachelor's in History, but it doesn't make her a historian, much less a good one.
+Christina Volkoff Bravo, Bravo!!!She only has a degree in English literature. She is NOT NOT an historian.You are so right. It makes me so mad. I read HISTORY not novels. Right again it is embarrassing. And the claims by the revisonists. Hey and all you people out there who think Buckingham did it.....although he was Constable of England no one could just roll into the Tower without a written warrant by the King. Constable of the Tower Brakenbury would not have let him pass NOT even Buckingham. Besides wrong place wrong time!
stop whining like bitches. Phillipa is a ricardian.✌
Philipa is a Woodville fangirl than a Richardian one. She makes Richard out to be a cheater during his marriage, even though he wasn't like that in real life, and she passes it off as "fact".
The only way Moore could have known was if he was there,and he wasn't there
"He did it!", "He didn't do it!" Who knows? It was 535 years ago. The truth is lost to history. Read your history, royalty was in a constant state of flux, with murders and executions being part of the game. Richard III was no worse than the rest of that lot.
I believe that Margaret Beaufort was responsible.She could've had someone bribe the guards to let the killers in and turn a blind eye to the murders.Henry had to have known the boys were dead because he got Parliament to declare Edward IV s marriage to Elizabeth to be valid.That meant that Edward V would've been king.Henry wasn't stupid.He would've realized that.If Richard had been behind it then Henry would've made sure that everybody heard about it right after he became king so he wouldn't be threatened with claimants to the throne.He was so paranoid,he would've thought of that.
They were in Henry tudors way more than they were in Richard's way ..
@Jody Doherty Richard had declared them bastards, but even as bastards they had a stronger claim to the throne than Henry.. as you recall the first thing Henry did was to marry Elizabeth of York
@Jody Doherty even as a female and a bastard her claim was still stronger . And yes yr right he wanted an end to the war
No one needed a boy king.
Oh, wow. LOL.
this is amazing! is the narrator the voice of Ser Aliser throne from Game of thrones? Sounds familiar
I think He was more in control than anyone as such gives him credit for i for 1 admire his legend and guile. 2
Wicked or wonderful ge leaves such unanswered questions and questionable motives ❤❤❤❤❤
My main question is when the king and prince went missing what did Richard do? Was anyone questioned to find out what happen?
I going to start up the "I Hate Richard III Society" soon. I know what he was, a smooth talking overly friendly demon that had a gentleman like exterior that hides a black heart.
Oh you knew him personally? you make me laugh
No of course not Gab, I was friends with his brother.
Richard III rhymes with turd.
He was the one that ordered the murder of the young Princes.
It was an inside job.
Henry III and Edward VI were both only 9 when they became king, and Henry VI was still an infant when he took the throne. So in comparison Edward IV, at age 12, was practically grown. His ascension to the throne should not have caused any great crisis, unless somebody wanted to usurp the throne. Furthermore, wasn’t it unusual for the country to be entrusted to a single individual during a king’s minority? Do we really know if Edward V put his brother Richard solely in charge, or do we only have Richard’s word for it?
Because he was a child and children could not claim sanctuary, Richard III was within his rights in removing Richard of Shrewsberry from his mother who was in sanctuary.
@@Orphen42O On what grounds did Richard III have this right or authority?
Henry the eighth was 15 when he took the throne. His son Edward was king at 9
@@christianpatriot7439 he had no rights. Sanctuary was considered a place where royalty can not touch you. It was about honour and he had guards outside but she came out of sanctuary of her own accord after making terms with Richard
@@laurenhickman9317 Edward V and his brother were both the son of a king. Their uncle was not. So who had the better claim of being royalty? So what right did the uncle have to take any royal out of sanctuary?
This documentary contends that Richard III was unaware of the possibility that Edward IV's marriage was bigamous until Bishop Stillington revealed he had married Edward IV to Eleanor Talbot. He knew that there had been were questions about the validity of Edward IV's marriage because there had questions about Elizabeth of York's legitimacy when the French considered her as a future queen. Richard III made all his plans to seize the throne at his mother's London house. She would have known all the family secrets and she would not have wanted a future king to be dominated by the Woodvilles.
Why are they citing More? It's hard to keep watching a documentary that cites the work of someone they call a historian....who was seven when Richard was killed at Bosworth. People like to pass More off as if he were a witness, but he obviously was not.
The fact is, the pre-contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler invalidated the marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. When Richard initially hard of his brother's death, he paid for a memorial mass and swore his fealty to his nephew. Then he started to make arrangements for his nephew's coronation. What he did NOT do was bustle hurriedly toward London, which is what you'd expect an eager and greedy usurper to do. That's what HENRY did.
And let's face it, despite the myths, there's no contemporary accounts blaming the boys' murder on Richard. That's the later creation of Henry. Richard didn't have any reason to kill the boys, because there were other heirs between him and the throne, if the Woodville marriage was valid. Why kill just two when there were a half dozen or more possible claimants?
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Richard III was always the loyal brother and servant of his brother. There's no hint of duplicity. In fact, he was such a fair steward that even when he was sent to subdue the north, he did with such unusual level-headedness that the city of York mourned him even to Henry's face.
Huh, reread or study your history
Well said.
Henry Tudor is my bet. I believe the princes were still alive at the time of Richard III's defeat at Bosworth. When Henry Tudor won and married Elizabeth of York and realised the boys were still alive, by marrying their sister, Henry automatically gave them legitimacy and they could grab the throne away from him. Naturally, Henry VII had to kill them.
Ok, but what of Elizabeth Woodville? It is known that her and Margaret Beaufort had messengers sent between them to arrange Elizabeth of York to marry Henry Tudor if he took the crown. And this was before he left exile in France and Bosworth Field. Why would Elizabeth allow this unless she believed her sons to already be dead?
The case will probably never be solved
Because they don't want it solved they like keeping Richard guilty notice how history is so big on tuders
But Thomas Moore was only a young boy at the time when Hastings was arrested.
How could he have known what happened?
Did he later speak to someone who was actually there?
That what he said. More wrote that he had spoken to those who knew and had no reason to lie.