Part 1 of my talk with Matthew Lewis, discussing his theory on Edward V & Edward Earl of Warwick
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- I had such a good time talking with Matthew Lewis that we got carried away and the chat was so long, I've had to split it into two parts!
In this first instalment we are talking about Matthew's theory that the first threat to Henry VII's reign, fought at the Battle of Stoke Field with the pretender Lambert Simnel as the figurehead, was actually an uprising in favour of Edward V not Edward Earl of Warwick. It's really interesting!
Matt Lewis writes about medieval history with a particular interest in the Wars of the Roses and Richard III. He has written two novels and several non-fiction books, including biographies of Richard III, Richard, Duke of York, and Henry III. Matt has also written The Survival of the Princes in the Tower, and his accounts of The Anarchy and the Wars of the Roses.
You can find Matthew here:
/ mattlewisauthor
/ mattlewisauthor
www.amazon.co....
All his books can be found on his Amazon author page. This talk is based on his book 'The Survival of The Princes in The Tower'. His other titles include:
Richard III: Fact and Fiction
Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me
Richard of York: King by Right
The War of the Roses: The Key Players in the Struggle for Supremacy
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.4 (4/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d3l5rxl5CVo/mqdefault.jpg)
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm such a Plantagenet nerd. I'm sitting here listening to this and everyone else I know and most people in the world would find this completely boring yet I'm so intrigued!!
Edward IV is my 17th great-grandfather, so I suppose I'm related to these. Interesting stuff, thanks for this discussion.
I'll be damned. NOW I really enjoyed this, as if hearing it for the first time- now that I know who Edward Plantagenet was! I think this video would be much better named as Who was Lambert Simnel impersonating- Edward V or Edward Plantagenet, son of George, Duke of Clarence. Even when I knew who E. Plantagenet was I was still confused at EXACTLY what you were trying to do here, the purpose, with all the FABULOUS scholarship and consideration of both sides. It is a wonderful video, but perhaps easier at first for the British. I get it now, the twins surviving or not and the outcome if Edward V survived, the impersonation. Thanks so much!
Wow! So much information to take in and think about. Can’t wait to watch episode 2. 🙂
I've subscribed. Have you revisited this subject? I saw part 2 before part 1. Both were very good. I LOVED your questions to Matt. Very knowledgeable and insightful. Without your care, and research of these subjects, I don't think anyone would have thought to ask these questions? At least, I have not heard in any interview thus far? Matt is a spectacular guest. His mind does work like a detective/lawyer who knows his client's life is at stake if he doesn't find the answer. So, looks under stones no one has thought to turn over.
I do hope you interview him again. You are both very good at your work.
Much gratitude!
P.S. I watched both episodes more than once so I would not miss the many details and information. All like treasure!
Sorry about this... woke in the night and this amused me.
"If I could go back in time... I'd go back and ask Edward V 'who killed you'".
Think about it.
Great video by the way, really enjoyed it.
Thank you! Yes - if I could ask him then mystery solved! As soon as I get my time
machine, I’m going back to find him!
Anne's interest in modern times wasn't spurned upon by the need to learn about female figures of history - we'd think that due to common themes of today. However, it was the 1969 film "Anne of the Thousand Days" starring Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold. It fascinated the world. You will find if you ask, women and men today "why?" are they so enamoured with the Tudors, it is that very film.
Power changes a man.
Power is worse than money.
I know you are not a Tudor fan but Matthew have you ever thought of playing Henry VIII with your colouring and build, around the time he had begun to tire of Katherine and became enamored of Anne, before he really went to seed. Just a thought. Love your vids along with Nathen Amin and Dan Jones too.
matt is extremely convincing
They found 2 bodies under the stairs. Clearly is them. What bones of other children those ags could they be?
There’s been lots written on why those may not be the princes. I suspect we will never know for sure. Have a Google and there’s a mixture or articles. Very interesting to get all the different info and viewpoints. It’s good that history keeps us guessing, as it keeps us talking and researching. However, it can be very frustrating.
@@thehistoricalcollaborator yes I just read some that say the the bones are fragments and include animal bones... Idk if there are 2 skulls even. I am wondering if someone helped them escape? Or like the woodsman in snow-white just couldn't do it and so just told the Queen he did but really let her go. Maybe something like this happened? And so perhaps Lambert and Perkin were not pretenders?
Could be tested as the bones are in Westminster Abbey.
However there is resistance to doing this.
What are they afraid of?
@@GravityBoy72 yes. Why not test them? It doesn't make sense. Why is someone today hiding it?
I think Perkin was real. That's why they didn't kill him for so long and let him live in the palace. They only killed him why even spain demanded it before they'd let their daughter come marry their son..... Send like they believed it was him if they demanded his death. 👀
So interesting! But who IS this Edward, Earl of Warrick, supposedly Edward VI? Who is his father? If Edward IV son is in the Tower as Edward V (one of the vanishing princes), then who is this Edward, Earl of Warrick who is hauled out of ST. Paul's? Were there THREE boys in the tower at one time?
Edward was the son of George, Duke of Clarence, who was the brother of Edward lV and Richard lll. Edward was placed in the Tower during Henry Vll's reign for some trumped-up reason when he was a young boy. He was not in the Tower when the Princes Edward and Richard were there.
@@laurabrowning7973 THANK YOU !!! I apologize for being so late!
Edward, 17th Earl of Warwick was a Yorkist. So, he didn't have a "better" Lancaster claim to the throne than Henry Tudor (whose claim came from his mother's side) Edward did have a better claim to the throne however.
We were once told Thomas More invented Richard IIIs hunch back. But we now know he was absolutely correct.
Richard lll didn't have a hunch back. The curvature was sideways in his spine and caused one shoulder to be slightly higher than the other.
@@laurabrowning7973 He was deformed. Thomas More was correct in that much. Richard also murdered his nephews
New details! Simnel street?
Great debate
I just found you! Dr Kat led me here ❤
What is your name, dear lady? I enjoy your interviews and your style; you are so pleasant and easy to listen to. And, YOU are the one who introduced me to Matthew. Thanks. What is your name?
Difference between the Plantagenets and the Tudors is the former you have 300 years of death involving for the most part, war against a different nation. The latter is ONE brief dynasty of Monarchs you can count on one hand, who beheaded, and burned alive mostly, their own people. The only difference is that one is encrusted in riches, and fine fashion causing successive generations of wide-eyed historians and pseudo historians swimming in an intoxicating, eternal fascination with them.
I say for blood and burnings, the Tudors get the prize. If they'd been 300 years, there would be no England to stick into a "Britain."
There was evidence the twins were killed. During a remodel in the castle in the late 1800s two small boy skeletons were discovered. Dig up the info - probably them. Age of the remains do fit.
Hi Sally,
Yes, there’s a strong belief that it could be them, but also some stuff to suggest it could not be. It does seem likely, poor souls. I suppose unless the bones can be tested, we’ll never know.
There were animal bones found in there as well. It was a primitive study done, really. I wonder if the bones would yield any viable DNA samples at this point? I'd like to think it was the boys, too. I hate to think of them just out there somehwere, lost. We need more evidence, though. To say it as fact is dangerous to the truth.
The two missing princes were 12 and 9 years old at the time they disappeared. They were brothers, but not twins. The bones discovered at the Tower of London were found in 1674, under the stairs during remodeling/repair of the White Tower section of the Tower of London. This was during the reign of King Charles II (1660-1685). The bones were reburied in Westminster in 1678. The examination done before sending them to Westminster, (without true medical knowledge), identified the bones as being those of the two long lost princes. Obviously the reliability of that identification is going to be questioned today.
@@thehistoricalcollaborator I heard they won't allow them to be tested. Why? Like it's important.
@@lizamartin4705 I think it’s just because they have been laid to rest in a consecrated place. If you remove them, that sets the precedent for ANYONE to be removed. At the end of the day the results would be fascinating, but it wouldn’t solve the mystery and it doesn’t right a wrong. Ethically, there’s no justification.
Why aren't you're other videos like this? I clicked around and I can't figure out what the others are even about??? Send they are announcements or talks about things with no title. No description. I listen a little and still there's clue. This one was interesting though.
Well I have put full descriptions on all of them, so if they are not showing up, that’s an issue with TH-cam that’s out of my control. They are still showing for me and no one else has ever commented that they have an issue.
Also - if what’s on here isn’t good enough for you, you don’t have to watch it. Myself and many others produce content for free and we’re fed up of unfair criticism. I mean really fed up. We discuss it a lot. It’s very rude. If you wondered why you couldn’t see something, it’s fine to ask. You could’ve said something like ‘Hi, I’ve noticed that I can’t find information about some of your videos. Could you give me some?’. But no - straight in with the rudeness.
@@thehistoricalcollaborator I didn't mean to sound rude. It's hard to get the time from text. I really enjoyed the one video and looked for more excitedly. But all the videos are just talking about videos coming soon and what you'll talk about not any actual discussions. I'm not complaining. I like the one enough to want more but can't find any. I'm asking where are they?
Help!! Is this kid in the tower who is not one of the "two princes in the Tower" the son of The Kingmaker (Earl of Warrick)????? If so, why is HE there? Who is this kid whom Ireland wants to promote? You said a boy from Oxford??? Thanks.
The kid in the Tower, Edward, was the son of George, Duke of Clarence, who was the brother of Edward lV and Richard lll. He was put in the Tower per orders of Henry Vll for some trumped-up reason - probably because he was a Plantaganet with a claim to the throne. The Kingmaker was dead, and Edward gained the title of Earl of Warwick because Isabel, the Kingmaker's daughter, was Edward's mother. I hope that helps and isn't too confusing.
@@laurabrowning7973 Thanks so much!!! Sorry to be so late with this!!!
Ok, I need to listen to this in its entirety. So, this "Edward VI, Earl of Warrick, is George's son?!!!
George, Duke of Clarence was Edward lV and Richard lll’s brother. His son was Edward of Warwick (because he was born at Warwick Castle). Edward lV also had a son named Edward, he would have been Edward V if he was not illegitimate.
Edward Vl was much later, he was Henry Vlll’s son by Jane Seymour.
@@Loyaultimilie Thank you so so so so much! I finally got it straight, but wow; tough for this US guy. Everybody has the same name!!!!!
Dear Mam, Please let me know how I can get in touch with you or with Matt. Thanks. Elizabeth.
NB The email link on Matt's website is out of order at present.
Hi Elizabeth. Oh no! I’m not sure what’s going on with his website. You could try tweeting him @mattLewisAuthor and search Matt Lewis Author on Facebook and try and contact him there.
My email address should you need to get in touch is catherine@thetudortracker.com
You can also find both of us by our names on Clubhouse!
@@thehistoricalcollaborator Hi Catherine, Thank you. It's nice to be in contact here. Do you think you could suggest something for me about my history studies, please? I would like to train in History. I am an adult/senior age person! Where did you and where did Matt train in History please?
The reason Henry VIII was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope was because he defended the Holy Catholic Church against Martin Luther, and the reformation who broke away from the Church because they believed that the Pope, who sits in the "Seat of Saint' Peter" was the foundation, and Head of the Church. Henry, by breaking away, destroyed what the Church meant. Catholic means "universal" where the "Church" is ONE in every corner of the world, and was birthed out of the side of Christ on the cross when the spear pierced him in the side. The significance of the "water and the blood" which poured out represented the "Birth" of the Church. Christ is the Groom, and the Church - ALL of the people apart in the Church, are the ONE bride. This is what the Catholic Church means - in its definition. Henry, by breaking away from the "Church" was NO longer Catholic. That's it and LOST the title given to him by the Pope "Defender of the Fatih." Essentially, it is a joke that it is used by any Monarch today. They are Head of the Anglican Church, but NOT "Defender of the Faith."
Henry destroyed monasteries, and burned priests, monks, nuns, and other Catholics alive. They were TRUE Catholics. Henry in no way, could ever be, unless he renounced his Kingship, his wives, entered seminary, or was appointed by the college of cardinals, as Pope. Then, he would be THE Catholic Head of the Church in the "Seat of Saint Peter."
In Henry's mind, he may have been Catholic - sorry for him, he was not.
Thomas More didn't lie. He was a contemporary and states Richard III had his nephews smothered. Richard may have done this to protect himself from their mother's family but Thomas More was not a liar.
This is kinda ebic