Did you find any of the evidence the documentary presented persuasive and why? Let me know below and remember to check out my Patreon at www.patreon.com/historycalling and my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
I saw the documentary here in the US and, while I am interested in English history, I don’t have anywhere near your knowledge of it. However, many of the things you cited bothered me as well. Couple that with Langley’s ample history as a Richard III apologist, I just didn’t buy her arguments.
GREAT job! You are always thorough and offer another perspective. The Ricardians want very badly to redeem a man who in his own lifetime did all that he could to make himself look horrible.
Loved the documentary it was great and gave me much thought, Henry Vll is involved in it all imagine arriving at the tower and finding them there, so many terrorist
There's your bias, right there, "Richard III *apologist*". As if Richardson's don't dive deep into research to arrive at conclusions based upon evidence.
Last year, there were reports in the media that King Charles III was considering authorizing DNA testing for the bones found under the stairwell. "Speaking at Sandon Literature Festival in Staffordshire, Tracy Borman, joint curator of Historic Royal Palaces, said: “He has said he would like an investigation to go ahead, so that we can determine, once and for all, how the young royals died.” I would love to see this happen in my lifetime.
If he really said that, he’s delusional: no study of the bones could achieve that. There is of course a very strong possibility that they could turn out not to be 15th-century bones at all (the Tower was already half a millennium old in 1483, and of course the site had been inhabited for a millennium or so even before that) and/or not even male! In which case we’d be exactly where we were before. And even if they did turn out to be two boys deceased in the 1480s aged about 10 and about 12, the elder of whom had spent two years in the Welsh Marches shortly before his death, both sharing the same DNA as Richard, which would identify them pretty conclusively as the Princes, it’s vanishingly unlikely that any cause of death could be established, and impossible to fix the date of death closer than a window of a couple of decades. So they could give no clue as to when they were murdered or by whom, or even whether they were murdered at all. (It’s perfectly possible that while in Richard’s custody they just died, as so many medieval people did, of water-borne / food-borne / infectious illness, and Richard knew perfectly well that if he announced their deaths just about everybody would take for granted that he had murdered them, and felt that just having them disappear from sight was a better option for him.)
@@VicDennis-np1tu - On a personal level, I'm not concerned with the cause of death -- or if it were found to be murder, who carried it out. I would just like confirmation that the bones currently entombed in an urn in Westminster Abbey are or are not the princes'.
Except they won’t ever do DNA bc they still fear the facts, (even if Charles didn’t recognize it and initially spoke out of turn by suggesting DNA. He was probably advised against it). It undermines claims to the throne and proves an ancestor murdered children to usurp the throne. Then, there might also be more secrets, such as illegitimate children in the line of the throne exposed through the DNA testing and subsequently reveal incongruity. It’s not in their interests. They don’t want a public record of more unsavory history, even when they have plenty of scandals - these are just two more skeletons in the family closet.
A very good analysis. Another factor about the monk Mancini - even if he did not speak English, he would have spoken Latin as did most learned church people and many other learned people of the time. So he could have discussed such matters with other English contemporaries from the Church and nobility while he was in England and both understood each other since they all spoke Latin. No translator would be needed if both spoke Latin.
Yes, that's a good point. Latin was spoken among many learned people in that error. A shared language can even occur today. Years ago, I spoke to a WWII veteran who served in Europe. When the war ended, he served as a courier between the Americans and the Soviets. He told me of one instance when he spoke to a Russian tank crewman. Neither spoke the other's language, but they had both learned some German, so they used that.
As soon as I saw the name Philippa Langley, I knew the conclusion of her documentary would somehow exonerate Richard III because her bias towards him is very strong. I was (and still am) fascinated by the finding of Richard III’s remains and have watched several documentaries on it. And in every one, she came across as (how do I put this nicely?) obsessed and half in love with Richard. That completely undermined whatever credibility she had. I know there was Tudor propaganda against him (the exaggeration of his scoliosis being one obvious example) and that he may have been an able administrator. But none of that changes that he usurped the throne when his nephews were in his custody and that they disappeared. The “evidence” in this new documentary is not persuasive. I found your analysis to be thorough and appropriately skeptical and much more persuasive.
I do believe the boys were killed by Richard. His desire for power was too strong. Declaring his brother’s children illegitimate is a proof. Then he must finish them to avoid future problems. Why disappear them instead of say that the died of an illness? To create a doubt about Richard as usurper, traitor and murderer. Bodies are proof but vanquish is a mystery. In the other hand, if he was innocent, why to keep a mystery about the children whereabouts? And if they were killed by other hands, why he didn’t launch an investigation to find the culprit and clean his name? Even if they were killed thinking to protect Richard Crown without him knowing, he had to look and execute the person or persons involved. If it was a Richard’s enemy like Margaret Beaufort, this was the perfect opportunity to get her and her son out of his way for good. All of this are circunstancial evidences that can be proved by identifying the bodies. Hope King Charles allows the tests.
It undermined the fact that she actually found him?! The evidence that she did is buried in Leicester Cathedral. It’s ok to not like her, if I’m honest I don’t particularly. Like her, but I find the constant attempt to undermine her rather unsavoury. People wouldn’t speak this way about a male historian.
I swear, those who favour Richard III are fanatical. I read one book on Richard from a supporter and his whole argument boiled down to 'lawyers keep great track of their documents, so the precontract of Edward the 4th was real'. No other evidence needed apparently
@@ffotograffyddI would talk about male historians this way. I think that Ricardians verge on conspiratorial with little good evidence because they have a parasocial love of Richard and are unwilling to accept the idea that he was a complicated figure. They have a persecution complex because of the Shakespeare Play and have deluded themselves into thinking that people who believe Richard ever wronged anyone think so because of Shakespeare and “Tudor Propaganda” even though shockingly the world is less familiar with the works of Shakespeare than historians might believe.
@@ffotograffydd No, it undermines her credibility in analysing less tangible evidence. I remember how she cried on camera when finding out that Richard had scoliosis, because she was so convinced that everything the Tudors said about him was a lie. She pulled off the coup of a lifetime by actually finding his skeleton, but that doesn't make her other opinions bulletproof. Personally I think Richard painted himself into a corner, politically speaking, when he seized power to avoid having a child on the throne during turbulent times, and then had to get rid of his nephews despite his earlier loyalty to his brother. His complete silence on the issue suggests a man dealing with overwhelming feelings of guilt, rather than the pantomime villain the Tudors painted him as - which doesn't exonerate him at all, of course!
The fact that their mother believed them to be gone is the strongest evidence to me. It seems very likely that news of their death would have been brought to her, officially or not. Otherwise, she would have continued in the hope of being reunited with them.
If Elizabeth thought Richard killed them, why did she allow her daughters to attend Richard's court festivities? More's story was not written until 50 yrs after the "fact". Why too didn't Henry bring this up when he presented his Bill of Attainder against Richard?
@@abbyrock5684 What choice did she have? Richard was king. She had to make him believe she was fine with him. In fact, you know that Elizabeth ended up working with Margaret Beaufort in order to take Richard out. I think the problem is that you expect her to rise in rebelion immediately. Well....that would not have been so easy. She needed time to find allies who could take Richard out. If you consider how long it did take....you realize it did not take that long. Indeed, its quite possible she started negotiations with the Lancasters pretty soon after her kids were gone. She had to play her role at court as best as possible. And her daughters had to do the very same thing.
There is 0 evidence their mother thought they were gone . In fact in 1485 her oldest son Thomas Gray is caught by Henry trying to return to England . At no point did Elizabeth or her daughters and son ever accuse Richard, even after his death .
@@katakauchi Her actions are all the evidence you need unless you want to consider her completely inept. Why did she allow her daughter to marry with Henry Tudor if she believed her kids still alive? Would she not understand that Henry Tudor would be a dangerous rival to her kids? One more on top of Richard. If the kids were alive, they did not need anyone else wanting to kill them. And Henry Tudor married with Elizabeth York would have a reinforced claim to the throne, which he would want to use. Those kids would be in his way. If the kids were alive, Elizabeth Woodville should have negotiated with Margaret in Burgundy. She could flee there with her daughter Elizabeth and get the kids there too. From Burgundy they would be able to get support from Margaret and Maximilian which would like to place a strong ally on the throne of England. Margaret and Maximilian still tried. Had Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth York remained free, they might have allied with whatever kids Margaret could come up with.
Langley did incredible work in getting a dig organised to find Richard III, in particular her pinpointing where Richard was buried! But I don't think there's any denying her strong bias. Which doesn't make for the best fact finder
Both ‘sides’ of the argument have a bias, that’s why at this stage the question can only be answered by science. Most historians have already taken a position and seem very reluctant to consider any new evidence.
@@MoMoLuey no I don't want to put her down at all, but she does hold Richard III in such a high regard, it's difficult for me to take her seriously. She was adamant Richard wasn't a 'hunchback' based on nothing at all, only to have severe scoliosis confirmed in the skeleton.
Mattiebeekeeper, the king had scoliosis, not kyphosis. Clothed, he would have had a slightly raised right shoulder. This is not the same thing as kyphosis.
I appreciate your take on this. As a fan of Matt Lewis and an avid listener of Gone Medieval, I was very interested in what was going to be discussed. My skepticism was only strengthened and I felt this conclusion had been rushed and vastly sensationalized. I am ... disappointed in some of those who have participated. I'm not against the idea of one or both princes possibly surviving though it is highly unlikely, and none of the alleged evidence presented has dissuaded me from that stance.
Yes, I'm afraid I just couldn't get onboard with his idea of the real Edward V being crowned in Dublin, whilst posing as his younger cousin who was alive and well in England, then dying at Stoke. There was no evidence at all. Truly, it was very bad history (in fact I can't even call it that. It was pseudo-history/historical fiction).
History calling, You're getting confused. Edward V did not pose as Warwick. This was a Tudor detail that was added later. What was important to note is that Richard III's named heir and cousin of Edward V, the Earl of Lincoln, attended the Dublin coronationYou really need to read Phillipa Langley's new book.
@Moose.-vy5ye History Calling doesn't use modern books and things for her research. She ONLY uses primary sources, which is documentation that can be proven through research and science. Maybe you should consider doing the same.
Really cool that Langley found Richard in the parking lot, but she's got a strange obsession with him being this awesome king who never did anything wrong. Rick was a KING, and kings and now presidents and prime ministers have always done crappy things to secure their power. Ricky wasn't any exception. Kill the nephews, keep the throne, yep, sounds legit. I don't think he's the cartoon character in Shakespeare's play, but I do think he's not as lily white as Langley wants to believe.
Actually the location of where Richard III was buried not such a great mystery. It was recorded that Henry VII had him buried in Greyfriars in Leicester. Although the building was demolished it's location was known. What Phillipa Langley was able to do was to raise the funds to enable a dig to go ahead. It didn't take long to uncover the outline of the foundations of Greyfriars and locate the area where Richard III was buried. As for Phillipa Langley pointing to the letter R in the word Parking and saying that is the spot, let us say a fortunate co-incidence.
Thank you for that clarification of facts. I don't remember the facts you have stated being voiced when the remains were found. It always appeared to be that Ms Langley was somehow 'guided' by mystical powers rather than studying old maps and historical documents.@@stephenbarker5162
@@kaycosette I think so too. And that's really sad and kinda pathetic in a way. I honestly feel sorry for her. It's almost like she's trying to prove her love to a guy who's been dead over 500 years by trying to get everyone to view him as a hero. Like I said, I don't think he was the cartoonish villain Shakespeare paints him as, but he was a king, and kings sometimes do bad things. We all are a mix of hero and villain. We all have an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, always talking to you. Which one you listen to is what makes the difference.
@@stephenbarker5162 Yeah, I saw the show, watched the show with Ricky's reburial too. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out where he was originally buried, lol, all it took was a little research and a tenacious will .
I have NEVER I all these years come across someone on TH-cam who so respectfully expresses disagreement. You must be a wonderful person in real life. God bless
I'm definitely of the idea that Margaret of Burgundy definitely THOUGHT that Warbeck was her nephew, which makes it all the more tragic imo. And, of course, even if she knew he was false, why would she not capitalise on a plot to topple a man who she hated
Precisely. I wouldn't rule out the idea that she really believed it either. I wish we had Elizabeth of York on record saying what she thought about it, given that she'd likely have been able to recognise Richard/Perkin one way or the other.
@@HistoryCalling My sense about Elizabeth of York was that she was a survivor, she would likely have "played it safe" and not commented on any of these intrigues.
Yeah. She lost her father and one brother in the fight for the throne, and then the make line of her family held onto it for one generation. The idea of some guy whose claim to the throne wasn't even that strong just swanning in and taking it from her last surviving brother must have rankled. She also may not have wanted to believe Richard capable of nepoticide, so it could have been wishful thinking on her part.
As much as i respect Phillipa for her accomplishments, I fear she's making the capital mistake of starting with the conclusion (Richard III wasn't as wicked as people think) and working backwards from that. She's not completely wrong, he definitely wasn't the diabolical villain of Shakespeare's portrayal, but it stretches credulity too thin to consider him in any way a good man.
Not totally disagreeing with you but it does seem strange that he always fully supported his brother Edward 4th so was clearly loyal. I find it hard to believe he would have had his nephews murdered due to his clearly high regard for the king. I think maybe he thought that it would be impossible to have a child on the throne as there were too many ambitions people surrounding him to try and gain power. Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by taking the throne? I think the princes died in the tower of what was called 'jail fever' as it wasn't a healthy environment for anyone let alone children. They would be further weakened by being denied access to the fresh air and the lack of vitamin D. Just my view.
@@56beverleyWhy wouldn't Richard have announced it then and allowed physicians to do autopsies? His loyalty towards his brother could have been a show, knowing he was closest to power with him on the throne. Or it could have been pure hatred of Elizabeth Woodville that motivated him.
I think starting with a conclusion isn’t all bad, but I’d prefer a more clearly defined hypothesis. Proving he’s not pure evil I believe she accomplished quite well, but proving that he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of his nephews, well...i don’t exactly think she provided any real evidence that would remove Richard III as a suspect from either the direct actions resulting in their deaths, failure in his duty of care given his time and position, or proof the boys lived....it might be more that on a balance of the available evidence, that her hypothesis isn’t exactly supported. I think this area of history still falls into the ‘more evidence is needed’ category
This is exactly it. I was stunned when she referred to this as a "cold case." Homicide & Missing Persons Detectives (almost) never start a case with the answer & work their way back to pick the evidence which best suits their theory.
They were declared illegitimate and removed from the succession. Henry vii declared them as legitimate so when he married thier sister it improved his claim. Henry never accused Richard of having them killed. What is known about Richard was that he was incredibly loyal to his brother. I don't see a reason why he could have had them killed.
@@Trebor74 Few cared about what Parliament said about a supposed illegitimacy, any more than what Parliament said about who was really king. "Stone dead hath no fellow".
One thing that raises skepticism for me is that the people avowing that Lambert Simnel/Perkin Warbeck was one of the Princes in the Tower are always people who were at a distance from the legitimate princes - cousins, courtiers. As you mention, Elizabeth of York would have seen Perkin Warbeck and would surely have recognized him if he was Richard. But also, there were five other York siblings alive at the time, and Elizabeth Woodville didn't die until 1492. If either of the pretenders were the actual princes, couldn't they have gotten support from their siblings or mother? Or at the very least, acknowledgement that "Yes, this person is my brother." The fact that they didn't, and the closest level of familial support that they had was their aunt with a known grudge against Henry VII, really seals the deal for me that the pretenders were NOT the princes.
Exactly . All Elizabeth Woodville would have had to do was ask either Simnel or Warbeck a question that only her real son would know. Possibly, since children change so much from childhood to late teens, she might not have easily recognized them even if they were her children. It does seem likely that she made some inquiries about her son’s’ fate and reached her own conclusion that they were dead.
Elizabeth of York never saw either Simnel nor Warbeck, nor did Elizabeth Woodville. In 1487 Henry stripped Elizabeth of everything she owned and had her confined in Bermondsey abbey. Elizabeth of York also never saw either of them. Before forcing Warbeck to read that ridiculous confession, Henry had him beaten until his face was unrecognizable. Warbeck’s resemblance to EdwardIV was startling.
@nbenefiel I have always wondered about Elizabeth Woodville's oldest son from her first marriage, Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset. He knew Richard better than anyone and ran his household.
@nbenefiel Perkin Warbeck was brought to court with his wife, Catherine Gordon, who was one of Elizabeth's ladies in waiting. She probably saw him during Henry's return and later around court. Several of Elizabeth's sisters were also at court at this time and would have seen them. As for Lambert Sinnel, it was obvious he wasn't the young earl of Warick as he was in the tower at the time. I'm sure Henry and Elizabeth checked to make sure it was still him. Sinnel was made a cook in the royal kitchens and rose to the rank of Falconer, so Elizabeth would have undoubtedly saw him too. Also, there is no actual evidence as to the reason Elizabeth Woodville went into a nunnery, it could be for several reasons.
Philippa is clearly very passionate about R3, and that did result in her finding his remains. But I remember in the documentary about finding Richard, she tried draping Richard’s Royal standard over the box of remains as it was being transported for DNA testing. The archeologist in charge stepped in and said no tests have been done and there is no proof who it was and didn’t allow it. She was so blindly obsessed it was him, she bypassed all logic and reason. Also, the obvious evidence Richard had the princes killed are the two “prince sized” skeletons buried under a construction project that occurred right when they went missing. Has anyone explained who these two might have been if not the princes? Was it common practice to hide children’s bodies at the tower? How many more might be there? Someone needs to start a petition to ask the King to DNA test those bones before anymore Game of Thrones ideas about history come up.
The bones could well be that of the princes, as the circumstances of their discovery seem to fit almost too conveniently the account presented by Shakespeare based on Thomas More's investigation. Unfortunately, and despite no such confirmation of royal identity, the Crown so far as denied any request to submit the remains to modern forensic examination including possible DNA analysis. While I understand a reluctance to exhume royal remains when that act is done primarily out of morbid curiosity, the bones in question are NOT the undoubted remains of the Princes in the Tower, the fate of the princes is an enduring historic mystery, and modern forensics may well determine whether the bones are in fact those of the princes, or at least the impossibility that they could be so.
There may be some softening. I believe Prince Philip provided his DNA to confirm the remains of the Romanov family in 2018. It would be a good mystery to put to rest.
A point I would like to make is that would Henry VII have 're-legitimised' Elizabeth of York and her siblings if he wasnt absolutely certain that the princes in the tower were dead?
If they weren't dead, he would have lost his claim to the throne. He, and his formidable mother, had a strong need for those two to be dead. Margaret Beaufort was a lady in waiting to Queen Anne, so she had the court connections and power needed. And she did correspond with Elizabeth Woodville ...
Richard already did that. Not officially, but he was in the process of arranging marriages for the girls. Lots easier to arrange royal weddings for legitimate daughters of a king and nieces of another one. Now did Richard actually kill the boys or did something else happen like illness? Everyone with the means usually left London in the summer because of illness. I can’t imagine even the royal rooms in the Tower being a really healthy place for a couple of preteen boys to be locked up in. It was like they were there, then they weren’t. Someone like Richard trying to paint himself as just caring about the country I would like to think he would come up with a better story.
As much as I'd like to believe Richard didn't have the boys killed, my logical brain just doesn't think he would have let them live. I appreciate and admire the work Ms. Langley did to find Richard III (I've watched a documentary on the topic and found it fascinating), but I agree with you that she tends to paint him in a better light than he deserves. "The Princes in the Tower" is a topic that really interests me - and breaks my heart. To me, it's such a cruel story, like Lady Jane Grey. I wish there was a definitive answer about the skeletons interred at Westminster Abbey. Thank you for this look into the new "evidence" and your insights.
What if someone did kill them while they were under his watch knowing that he would be blamed? Or "kidnapped" them while he was trying to hide them from harm?
Excellent assessment. Personally, I find the subsequent behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville the most compelling reason to believe both boys were dead. It's inconceivable that if either were alive, they wouldn't have contacted her. The documents discovered are fascinating in showing how the fate of the 'princes' captured the imagination at the time & illustrate how interlinked the politics across Europe was. Their discovery, for me, is valuable because it shows that there's more to be uncovered about other historical events. 😊 On this though, I accept your assessment of the new evidence.
Yes, I think the documents are very interesting in their own right too, even though I don't interpret them in the same way as the TV documentary team ultimately did. I agree also that Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour strongly suggests a belief that her younger sons were dead. Poor woman - she lost so much just in that one year.
I believe the opposite. In order to believe Elizabeth Woodville thought her children were dead, you'd have to believe she'd hand her daughters over to their murderer and that she'd never have a mass said or publicly state her sons were dead. I think she knew they were alive, was playing both sides, and hoped that Henry Tudor would rid her of Richard and then one of her sons would rid her of Henry Tudor. It backfired. It also explains why Henry Tudor had her packed away to a nunnery. I've always heard that framed as mother-in-law drama, which is very misogynistic. Elizabeth Woodville was a power player, and if her sons were dead, she would have said so publicly.
Lucy, Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour SUPPORTS her belief that the boys were alive. There's proof of this. When discussing history, you can't base objective facts on feelings, and especially what you would do.
Not disagreeing with you on this but from what I have heard Elizabeth was quite docile and according to the times knew she was meant to be meek, obey and never question her husband. After all she wasn't their mother but just a sister. It also seems clear that she thought her brothers were dead but she did apparently make various appeals to free her nephew from the tower.
But if Elizabeth Woodville knew or believed that one or other of the pretenders was a son of hers and came out in support it would have had a big and maybe decisive impact on their success. Interesting that she did not.
There was no way she was ever going to come to the conclusion that Richard hadn’t killed them. I’m glad that Rob Rinder asked all the right questions though 😊
Yes, he was better than I necessarily expected him to be (given that he's a lawyer, not an historian). Now there were still some areas in which he didn't do as well, but I think that's to be expected when he's working so far outside his own wheelhouse. I'd have been mighty impressed if he'd known about Lord Lincoln's movements or the existence of Arthur Plantagenet for instance. He also seemed to misunderstand what the authentication of the documents meant. He appeared to think the experts had authenticated the manuscripts' contents, rather than just that they came from late 15th c. Europe.
I dont consider her a historian. Head of his fan club yes. She is so enamoured of her subject, with no evidence to support this view she thinks he could do little wrong.
And there was no way she was going to come to the conclusion that you would never find the body of Richard 111. I'm glad she persisted and asked the right questions to the right people !
She has a habit of ignoring information that points to anything that makes Richard look bad. We need more people who want to find the truth, who have theories and change their minds if evidence points in another direction. Not people who ignore information if it doesnt fit their narrative or twists it to mean something else. This woman has done great work but she’s oddly obsessed with Richard
@@msinvincible2000 no she didn't. The team of which she was a member, not a leader, discovered the remains. The place where he was buried had been known for years before, but it was in the middle of a busy city, in a place that was constantly occupied until recently. She was important as an instigator, and was included in every stage of the investigation and every press conference except the ones presenting the DNA evidence, but the project was not hers. There are two papers that were published before PL got involved, one of which, the David Baldwin one, was widely reported in the newspapers of the time. They are both available, and while Baldwin posits the place of his burial and dismissed the earlier story of the body being thrown in the river, the later one is more detailed.
Well all the information painting him bad were done by people who weren't even born at the time and were literally puppets under the monarchs at the time moore was henry viiis close man and Shakespeare not wanting to go against Elizabeth nothing at the time says anything about richard harming the boys he had no reason to
To be honest if Richard III was willing to kill senior nobles without any form of legal niceties why wouldn’t he kill the two people who stood between him and the throne he so coveted? The hypothetical question that interests me is: if Henry VII had found the boys alive, would they have lived for more than a few minutes after their discovery?
Henry needed Elizabeth of York to be legitimate for a strong claim on the throne, and to become king he needed the boys to be dead. Henry or his mother had strong motives to see the boys dead.
Interesting question. While I believe that the boys had a good chance to get out of the tower, and likely did, I shudder at the thought that Henry VII may have found them alive. They would not have lasted a few minutes alive.
@@lazygardens Yeah but the boys were already dead when Henry VII had his coup. It was the main reason why his mother, Margaret Beaufort, managed to gain support of the nobility. Because they all believe the two boys had been executed in an act of tyranny by Richard III.
Watched the original documentary and drove my husband mad by muttering 'that proves nothing' throughout- and laughed aloud at the idea that children were not murdered/judicially killed at the period. So much was a matter of believing with a very low level of evidence, and as you say, ignoring sources they didn't want to believe while enthusiastically accepting others no more credible that supported the narrative. Translated from the original Dutch ?? Sadly many people watching casually will accept the story uncritically and presumably are more likely to buy the related book. It would be good if programmes like this could be paired with others presenting the opposite version- your excellent and measured response for instance.
While it’s true that Richard III was likely not the cartoonish villain portrayed by Shakespeare, the fact of the matter is that he was a powerful political player determined to seize and maintain power for himself in the context of decades of brutal civil war and familial infighting. No king in that context can ever be a good man if they wish to remain king. I believe he was capable of and willing to kill the boys. He was cunning, manipulative, fearless, and focused on a singular goal. The boys had to die for him to achieve what he wanted, so they did. It’s that simple.
Except their deaths definitely caused him problems. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but imagine what the public must have thought of a man who would take in little children and then kill them? Shakespeare showed us some of that public opinion, I think.
Agreed. He was the king when they ‘disappeared’ so whoever killed them must have had his authority to do so. No one would have dared to bump off the king’s nephews, legitimate or not, without his nod. Poor Philippa. She’s beyond reason.
@@ARiddle1986 When you overthrow a king, you need to kill him so he does not escape and raise an army against you or so nobody raises an army in their name. Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI were murdered in prison for this reason. Edward V and his brother vanished right after a failed attempt to get them out of the tower. If they had been rescued, Richard would have faced civil war and death or exile if he lost. That's why he had them killed. There was a bigger downside to killing children than adults but it was just too dangerous to let them live. The real question is whether Richard could have survived if he had not overthrown the king. People have argued that the Woodvilles would have had him killed once Edward V was ruling in his own right. Once he usurped the throne, he had to kill his nephews. If he did not have to overthrow the king to survive, he was evil and Shakespeare's portrayal of him is fair. If he had no good choices and killed them to prevent civil war and to survive, it is more of a grey area. Even then, he was not the hero his fans argue he was.
How hard is it to believe that two boys go missing and then the bodies of two boys are found buried in the walls of the place where they were last seen with the same approximate age and from the same approximate time period.? How hard is it really?
What do you mean "from the same approximate time period"? We obviously have no idea of the time period the two children belonged to! If anything, them having been found at a depth of 3 m (10 ft) underneath the Tower seems to indicate they had lived well before the two princes. Besides, they were, apparently, not the only child skeletons to be found in the Tower.
@@francesco245 I understood that two male skeletons roughly the same age as the missing princes were found walled up in a hidden chamber under the stairs of the turret where the two princes went missing. Of course there were other children’s bodies found on the grounds. But the place in which the unidentified boys’ bones were found had been placed there (to reiterate) at the time that the princes went missing. It just seems why to coincidental to not be the missing princes.
Maybe someone wanted it to be believed that Richard III killed them. Also and because of that; even if the skeletons are those of the princes it does not tell who killed them. It is the same as with many issues even today: things seem to point unequivocally to some or other conclusion and it is only later that it becomes clear that this conclusion was wrong. Also there is the thing of something being plausible. It is not plausible that Richard III killed his nephews, but it is very plausible that Henry VII did and he wanted people to believe that Richard had done it.
The problem with these skeletons is that they were first dug up and thrown in a pit with dirt and other bones, and then someone connected the dots and came after them. But they might have mixed up with other bones. And still there were no real test on them, just a visual analysis and after that, on the XX Century they did another analysis, but only based on the reports of the first one.
Well when the bones are incomplete and mixed in with chicken wings and other bones it's not very hard actually. Is it possible ? Yes. Is it likely ? Not in that slaughter house 😂
As it would be if Buckingham had them killed without Richard's orders while he was away on his royal progress North: just at around the time they were seen no more. In that event, could he have spoken the truth? Who would believe him that he had had no involvement? Richard couldn't have moved against Buckingham immediately for that reason, but after hearing the king's reaction (after Richard returned the two had had "an unholy row"), Buckingham knew he was living on borrowed time. How else can one explain his revolting against Richard in favor of Henry Tudor, a man he never even met? If nothing else, Buckingham would have hoped that Richard would be killed as a result of the revolt and hopefully the truth would die with him as would have the actual killers. If you have some time, please read my recent comment here going into this. Thank you.
This documentary is a perfect example of someone having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support their argument, rather than letting the facts lead them.
@@callumclark3358 well it’s not Philippa Langley’s side. I think that she sees only what she wants to see and looks for evidence to back up her already made up mind.
@@ewanmaxwell3267 I understand that the child remains found in the Tower are still being preserved, but not made available for analysis. If, at some point it is possible to identify the Princes in these remains, I wonder how the Ricardians will react ? Their position has a lot in common with other contemporary conspiracy theories, and I would expect a range of reactions, from flat denial of the evidence to acceptance of the facts, but there’s nothing, even in theory, that would convince them of Richard’s guilt.
@@callumclark3358 I completely agree I’m certain they would just adapt as they did when they found out Richard III had a hunch back after saying it was Tudor propaganda for years.
The semi-idolization of Richard III is so odd to me. I can see no way that either boy ever made it out of the Tower alive- they posed far too great a threat to Richard who was very clearly setting himself up to be King at the time. To that end, Richard is the only person with means and motive to have them killed. Even if Margaret Beauford and/or Henry VII wanted them dead, they had no way to reach them.
Absolutely agree. The Plantagenets were power crazed monsters who had no respect for human life. Richard was no better than the rest of them, a man of his time and his blood. He saw the problem rival claimants to the throne caused in the Wars of the Roses, hence the murder of Henry V1 and his son. He wasn’t going to have that problem in his reign.
Thank you for doing this video at breakneck speed HC. Whilst I am happy to acknowledge Phillipa Langley's considerable acheivement in finding Richard 3rd, I am just as sceptical about some of this new evidence. Very little proper testing done on these bits of paper. No ink testing and no provenance on some of them. I do think she is on the right path in terms of finding more documentation on the continent, however, just accepting them on face value is not correct validation technique. Also, we have to accept that it is highly possible that both Margaret of Burgundy and Emperor Maximilian could have been completely duped or had their own reasons for believing imposters. I agree completely with your conclusions HC and have read in several places that Henry 7th refused to allow Elizabeth of York sight of Perkin Warbeck. She is supposed to have agreed to stay in her apartment when Perkin was in court. If she recognised her "brother" then her own position and that of her children was in jeopardy. It must have been very hard not to look though! As for digging people up, I don't really agree with it, but in this case, I think we should be considering Perkin Warbeck's grave in the Dutch church Austin Friars, near the ToL. His dna would show if he was Richard or an imposter. This would clarify all the stories about him and would leave the 2 people in the Abbey as still potential Princes in the Tower. It would be intetesting to hear what other eminent historians think about this programme. History is about finding facts that are verifiable, I don't think we got that in the programme. 😕
What a great idea! I've never heard that suggested! I'm not sure if we could always count on getting DNA from a skeleton that old, since HC has already pointed out how much other famous people's bones have disintegrated over time, but wouldn't it be great if that could be done! Of course, most people are already convinced Warbeck was an imposter.
Impossible because the Dutch church in Austin Friars was bombed by the Nazis and completely obliterated. No way would any DNA have been found even the next day & certainly not now. Try to keep up.
Whatever your opinion of Richard's guilt/innocence, let's be real: if this guy was alive today he's the kind of person who would appear on the front page of the Sun or the Daily Mail side bar of shame with headlines like "Most Hated Man in England?" and "Child Killer Breaks His Silence: The Tudors Lied About Me"
Richard III almost certainly saw no political advantage in keeping the two Princes alive to challenge him. His fairly tenuous grip on the throne was his major concern and he didn't care that secretly killing them might eventually lead to the appearance of future pretenders to the throne. I see no reason to doubt Mancini's assessment of the situation, since he was present, yet far removed from the political aspects of the situation. He had no "axe to grind" and his report of the "word on the London streets" can probably be taken at face value. When Q. Elizabeth Woodville switched to supporting Lady Margaret Beaufort in the claim of her own son Henry Tudor, I suspect she had probably received private information about the Prince's deaths. All the other claimants seem simply to be the pawns of powerful interests seeking the ultimate position of influence. I am not convinced by the "new evidence" presented so far.
I’m glad you covered this “hot” topic and that I wasn’t the only one left underwhelmed and unconvinced by the documentary. Phew! Richard III was yet again glossed over and defeated by his usual cheerleaders. There were no compelling evidences whatsoever that what Mrs Langley and her team found can be proven beyond the reasonable doubt. This would never fly in court. I must say that I thoroughly enjoy your channel and I always look forward to your Friday night history calls. This one was particularly good and it was interesting to hear your thoughts and opinions about it.
Very thorough rebuttal HC. I saw the documentary here in the states on PBS. I got the feeling, almost immediately, that Ms. Langley, who is very involved in the Richard III society, wants badly to clear his name. I am certainly no scholar, but why would Richard not show the boys off when rumors began to circulate about the boys being murdered. You mentioned that in the video as well. As for Richard’s ruthlessness, did he not have Elizabeth’s sons from her first marriage murdered? Forgive me, I get pretty muddled up with all these huge families. It seems to me that there are a lot more convincing evidences that he did have them murdered than he sent them away to live their lives in obscurity. Like you mentioned, they fought against, lied about and to one another, and despised and swore allegiance to one another all the time. It is a mystery and a compelling one, but will never be solved without DNA. Don’t hold our breaths for that one. You are able to so clearly make things clear and relatable (as possible). Thank you for that. Well done!
Thanks HC! A very interesting video. I don’t have access to the original documentary, and it looks like I don’t need to. My big problem with conspiracy theories is the sheer number of people who have to keep the secret. Forever! We all know how people love to talk. 😊 I think that is just as true in medieval times as it is today.
THANK YOU JULIA for so generously donating to the channel. Yes, I always think about the numbers involved as well and how unlikely it is that something like this could ever have been kept secret. As you note, people don't change that much and large groups of people couldn't keep a secret like the Princes escaping and leading armies today either.
What a satisfyingly in-depth episode. Your knowledegable, objective (imo), down-to-earth analysis makes sense to me. It's tough enough putting together the shorter episodes; thank you for going those added miles to give us this.
I always felt bad for Elizabeth Woodville as a mother for failing to protect her two boys. For not knowing what happened to them. If something like this happened to me, I think I would go insane with grief and guilt.
What would you expect her to have done? She was not in a position to save them; Richard had the upper hand. It is amazing what she endured, but she did not have to feel guilty in addition.
Maybe she shouldn’t have had her brothers try to stage a coup? Her husband, the King, the children’s father, made HIS wishes clear. Maybe they should have just done that? Imo, would have ended up at lot better.
I’m so pleased to see you made this video. I absolutely agree with you. Some people are saying that the history books need to be rewritten. But I really don’t see any new information in the documentary. It simply confirms what we already know, there were two people claiming to be the boys. We know that, the history is already written. Unless something is unearthed that proves they were the princes we are none the wiser.
There was a battle that took place where a 16 year old king was killed and an invoice backing that it's Edward through buying materials for the battle paid for by his aunt. There's also a history written by a boy aged 14 who went to the same parliament to stir a battle for England.
Gracious but thorough, and a master class in critical thinking, research, and the evaluation of sources and evidence. I wish all the history that reaches a popular audience was subject to this kind of peer review, and on an equal time basis. That'd make a nice second channel for HC! (Our American 'History' Channel, which positively and definitively identifies a different Jack the Ripper, a different D.B. Cooper, and a different Zodiac killer every week, shudders at the prospect!)
Thanks Joe. I hope it was gracious. I tried to stay calm and polite as I didn't want to offend the participants any more than is unavoidable, given that I'm disagreeing with their conclusions.
I’m no expert historian by any means, but I’m a staunch believer in common sense. Until strong real proof, I believe the poor boys died in the Tower and their uncle ordered it.
I love little sly comments you add in between your points XD They always get a hearty chuckle out of me in between what can be a lot of information to me sometimes "We're talking about a pan not a bucket" (this is from another video) "Unless it's coming from Dominic Mancini I guess"
Ah, yes, I remember the 'pan not a bucket' comment (warming pan theory). I just couldn't resist the Mancini one in this. The double standard was so blatant to me.
Of all the documentaries I've seen about this subject i have yet to hear anything about any searches that were conducted for the 2 boys. If my nephews were kidnapped from my home when I was supposed to be keeping them safe I'd move heaven and earth trying to find them. I've never heard this mentioned. It's like they shrugged, said "Oh, well" and went about their lives.
To make it worse, uncle/nephew relationships were much more important than they even are today. It was normal for the future kings to practically be raised by their uncles. That's part of what made the whole thing so awful even for the time
I did go out and watch the documentary (albeit in bits so my blood pressure could handle it lol) and I can't believe this was allowed to air with holes in the logic big enough to drive the Flying Scotsman through. They actively refer to Richard escaping the Tower as him being "rescued" but from their logic what was he being rescued from? The only half way decent answer I could come up with was he was being "rescued" because he was forcibly taken from his mother thus kidnapped but then why not just put him back in sanctuary with her? Judge Rinder points out the obvious question: why were they being held in the Tower in the first place if they weren't a threat to Richard which is never given a satisfactory answer.
I know. The plot holes were insane. The documents they found were interesting enough in their own right, as evidence of the Perkin Warbeck fraud, but other than the 1487 receipt, none of them had any demonstrable link to the real Princes and even that receipt can be explained in other ways.
@@HistoryCalling Like, the scribe who wrote that receipt probably didn;t know one way or the other if the person the pikemen were being sent to aid was actually one of the Princes. He likely got told "Emperor Maximillian is sending pikemen to Edward IV's son. Write that up in the accounts would you?" and that's what he wrote down. No conspiracy necessary.
Excellent and insightful video. I agree with your assessment of the documentary. I am the 13th great grandson of Sir Thomas More, so I am interested in all things Tudor. Please Test the remains in Westminster Abbey King Charles III...
‘Unless it’s coming from Dominic Mancini, I guess’ THE SHADE. I agree. She seems to see a source as authentic and reliable only if it agrees with her preconceived belief that Richard is a sweet little puppy dog of a man who never did wrong!
She's producing source material to counter an historic theory that has almost no source material. Rather than attacking her bias historians should be looking for data like she did, if they want to argue against her theories.
Thank you so much for making your conclusions fit the facts, as opposed to trying to make facts fit conclusions. It seems pretty obvious that the creators of this new doc have an agenda and anything that doesn't play to that gets ignored or twisted to fit what they WANT to be true. I saw the doc they made when Richard III was found years back and Phillipa Langley always seemed bias toward him for whatever reason- was even truly upset to find that he did indeed have scoliosis as opposed to it being a smear from his enemies. If you go into a subject with preconceived notions of what you want to be true and refuse to take anything to the contrary seriously, how can you hope to reach factual conclusions?
Yes, unfortunately I do find her to be much more emotionally invested in presenting R3 as the person she wants him to have been, rather than the person I think the evidence suggests he actually was. Still, she did an amazing job of pushing for the 2012 dig and fund raising for it and I don't think he would have been found if not for her, so she deserves her place in the history books for that and I wouldn't take that away from her.
@HistoryCalling I absolutely agree. She seems to be a genuine woman who truly believes in her opinions on this and she deserves a great deal of the credit for the discovery of his burial. Unfortunately, sometimes our beliefs, or opposition to what we dont want to accept, cloud our judgement. Every human being falls prey to these pitfalls sometimes.
That was my first thought as well. Going into research with as much of an agenda as she seems to have rarely makes for good scholarship in my experience.
To be entirely honest, when I saw Philippa Langley was involved in the documentary it put me off watching it. I will watch it because I’m interested, but I think where Langley is involved in anything referring to Richard III, neutrality goes out of the window. She did some amazing work to find the likely location of Richard III’s remains and I credit her for that, but even her approach to that search wasn’t neutral. I’ll never forget, the lady who was responsible for examining the bones explained that she was in the early days of her career. She basically said that if something went wrong with looking for the remains, if mistakes were made, it would ruin her credibility before she’d even begun, so what did Langley want to do when the remains were boxed up? She wanted to drape a flag over them, way before they had been proven to be Richard’s. Then there was the way she went to pieces when the sort of injuries the bones were subjected to were being explained. Yes, it was awful and gruesome, but I don’t think there was any need for her to storm out of the room in the way she did. She just came across as a Richard III groupie for want of a better way to put it. There was no objectivity, no neutrality. She just seemed to want Richard III portrayed as a saint who wouldn’t have hurt a fly, let alone two children, and he’d been murdered by that awful Henry Tudor for no reason because Richard was such a nice man really. It all came across as slightly ridiculous.
Excellent assessment of Langley's documentary. I found myself laughing at some of her statements, particularly her saying this was an objective & unbiased inquiry, then she went on to state she couldn't properly assess a document because she was biased. I also have questions about the receipt. I'm not doubting the authenticity of age but I've never seen such a detailed receipt with a drawn-out explication. To be fair, I'm not overly familiar woth those types of documents as I have not had to work with many. Again, excellent breakdown. You hit all of the major points that I thought while watching & brought up other fantastic points.
Maybe Richard didn't know what happened? If he had the bodies, he could give a big public funeral and display of grief while framing someone (as with Thomas a Becket). If he was sure they were dead, this could even be done with substitute bodies a couple of years later. But if he declared them dead and they reappeared, still young enough to be widely recognized, he would appear incompetent as well as a usurper. His silence to me implies uncertainty, more than guilt.
Oh, thank you for this HC! I watched the documentary and got more and more frustrated as it went on. Langley's ability to see exactly what she wants knows no bounds so your thorough de-bunking of most of her conclusions was much needed. I've always wondered why Margaret didn't get behind John DeLa Pole, her nephew and Richard's heir, following the death of his own son. As you say, Margaret had never met the 2 princes so supporting a dubious imposter rather than the known De La Pole never makes sense to me.
I've been waiting for you and other reputable evidence-based historians on TH-cam to post exactly this kind of video. Thank you for so thoroughly going through the evidence.
Amazing video, as always. Just a few points/questions: 1. What language is the inscription in, on the monument that houses the bones of the supposed princes in the tower? 2. Whose epitaph (the lady resting on the pillow) is seen on the right of this monument? 3. Are there bones also not interred with those of Edward the 4th and Elizabeth Woodville that could be the boys? 4. Richard the 3rd deligitimatised his nephews. Would it matter with these pretenders? 5. I believe that Henry the 7th was a wise king, not as blood-thirsty as his son or granddaughters. 6. I also believe that the boys were unfortunately killed. Richard the 3rd had made too many obvious moves to ensure his spot on the throne. Very chess-like. 7. Richard the 3rd named his successor, but this successor did not include the princes in the tower. He was either playing the game that these boys were illegitimate, or he knew that they were dead. 8. Wouldn't it be great if King Charles the 3rd, allowed those two sets of bones to be DNA tested?
The children of Edward IV were indeed declared illegitimate, and so they were no threat to Richard and there was no reason to murder them, they could have been held in the Tower, exiled, or even be allowed to live their lives in freedom as their sisters were. But Henry VII reversed that decision and had Edward IV’s children declared legitimate again in order to marry Elizabeth of York. That action made the Princes a threat not only to Henry VII, but to his heirs. That’s why the pretenders, if that’s what they were, were a threat to Henry.
@@ffotograffyddjust because Richard had them declared illegitimate doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a threat. As long as they were alive there would always be a danger of either boy being used by Richard’s enemies to overthrow him.
I’m glad you posted your own research after the documentary. It left me with more questions than answers. I thought they were swayed by their own bias, not facts. I hope King Charles gives permission to have the bones tested by a forensic anthropologist. I heard he was open to the idea. Perhaps the team that worked on Richard the third should do it. I hope there’s plenty of tooth pulp for a DNA test. Science is not biased. Thank you for the history lesson. Have a great weekend.
Thanks for the thorough and reasoned counterpoint to the documentary. (And in record time... full marks!) As others have stated, I admire Philippa Langley's determination to find Richard. That being said, I find the fangirl devotion makes me hugely skeptical of any of her conclusions. (That receipt is a very cool find, though.) The sequence of events and the subsequent actions of Richard III, Henry VII, Elizabeth Woodville, and Elizabeth of York (and others) just don't back up the "he didn't have them killed" theorists. I too wish the King would authorize the DNA testing. It may not provide a definitive answer, but it's certainly worth investigating.
Excellently researched and presented. I just saw the documentary on Thursday night and still wasn't convinced that this narrative had any serious weight. In fact, it left me with two questions: 1) Why did the narrative of Edward V just come to such an abrupt end at Stoke? Surely there would be some documented evidence that he was killed in the battle or at least went missing. 2) Was "Richard" ever presented to Elizabeth of York for identification? If so, I can imagine there certainly would have been some written chronicle of the meeting, but there was none. There's a wonderful miniseries from the early 70s called "the Shadow of the Tower" which follows the rule of Henry VII from his victory at Bosworth until his death. While, clearly, I don't rely on this as fact, the dramatizations of the two pretenders are done very well. I'm a huge Tudor history nerd, and Philippa Langley's documentary was entertaining and thought-provoking.
When it comes to these cold case history mysteries, the simplest most direct conclusion is by and large the truth. In the case of the Romanov murders, the world speculated for decades with outlandish theories of hope and survival (including a convincing imposter) only to learn in the end that all seven family members were in fact brutally murdered and hastily buried in a remote location just as the Bolsheviks said. We found that smoking gun and hopefully, one day we'll have the same opportunity in this case as well. Time and again, this kind of evidence has proven out more than any wild theory has. There is a reason cops today usually suspect the closest relative of murdered children and spouses first (i.e. Laci Peterson, Caylee Anthony, Jonbenet Ramsey, etc) if there's no other clear culprit or motive. The wild conspiracy theories make for great storytelling and it's always bittersweet to think maybe, just maybe, they escaped and their caretaker wasn't truly as evil as all that. But as we've seen from the other historical cold cases I mention here, people in desperate times are capable of the most bald faced lies and deceptions in order to save their own hides. In the end, the truth is often far less dramatic and more than likely heartbreakingly tragic. The evidence for motive and opportunity still falls in the lap of Richard III and it would take far more convincing evidence to prove otherwise to me. Excellent work debunking the recent hullabaloo over this! Thank you for continuing to offer well researched and entertaining content.
In fact, because the 2 youngest Romanians were discovered in a different place than the rest of the family, it gives a possible reason for those stories. Obviously none of them survived, but looks like the youngest 2 survived longer than the rest of the family, which would fuel those rumors.
Perhaps one day, Charles III will allow DNA testing on the bodies that were found under the staircase. After all, his father donated a sample of his DNA to confirm the identities of the Imperial Romanov family
Thank you! I'm going with Occam's razor. The most simple and likely explanation is that the two boys were killed at the hand of their politically ambitious and ruthless uncle. Sure, he isn't the caricature of Shakespeare but I don't quite understand why there is such a strong desire to rectify KR3's reputation. I think the evidence shows that he was a flawed and narcisstic king of his time and probably quite capable of executing his rivals.
I'm glad you mentioned Elizabeth of York because she wasn't mentioned in the documentary (and I kept waiting for them to do so). She surely would have been able to identify her kid brother. Of course, this would have put her in a very difficult position......identify him as the real Richard and she puts the throne of her husband and her son at risk, falsely identifying him as an imposter has the same effect. Since he was allowed to live, I have to assume he wasn't Richard and Elizabeth told Henry so.
I enjoy your videos, they are well thought out and researched, thank you. I find that Philippa tends to overly romanticize Richard III and underplay the involvement he had in the disappearance of his nephews that he had care,custody and control over.
I agree with you 100%. And let me add one more thing: If Henry VII would have killed the boys I bet you his relationship with his wife would have not been so lovingly. They both loved each other and she would have probably not been happy by having her brothers killed , or one around and then killed. There seemed to be a deep connection between them, so murdering her brothers, even for the sake of her own kids, would have not gown down well. We need the DNA testing to know if those are the princes or not.
Excellent point..commonsense assessment. For some reason people to day have an odd Idea of peoples humanity in the past…some had common sense too. Of course you mean Henry 7th.
If Henry VII had the princes killed, I would bet he made sure his wife never knew about it. I can't imagine him telling her, or allowing her to be told, for the reasons you've suggested.
"The show is presented by Philippa Langley" - sigh. The discovery of Richard III has both weakened and strengthen her stature: finding him (well done), and then being wrong about his back. ("Oh NO!" as she famously exclaimed upon seeing the spine for the first time.) I remember the halcyon days when Ricardists used to claim his back was totally normal. Anyway, the bottom line is, no one else would have brought forth something like this as "evidence", and the network went along with it because she did find the famous tyrant in the parking lot, so she must have credibility. Well, I think she has none here, and there's certainly no evidence for the fanciful narratives of pen-pal children writing from jail, shaved heads, traveling all over Europe, blah blah. All this reminds me of "NEW EVIDENCE" surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy which conveniently pops up every November of a major anniversary ending in the number "0". DNA of the bones in that coffin is the only thing that's going to solve this, if even then. And by the way: the dismissal of Mancini, the only writer of the exact contemporaneous period, is completely unprofessional, and renders this whole thing null, imo. Another great conspiracist debunk by HC.
Considering the way the bones were treated after they were disinterred, it's doubtful that anything useful could be retrieved. They were thrown on a rubbish heap, then retrieved, and handled by any number of people. They were corrupted before being reinterred, and then in the 1930s, handled again.
Thank you for another great video! In the United States, this documentary was presented and (possibly) re-edited as a part of the PBS series "Secrets of the Dead", which is how I watched it. I found the presentation of the information to be sensationalist, the evidence cherry picked as you said, and at least in this version of the documentary there was barely a single mention of a pretender, either Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck, in the entire program. The idea that any of those documents could possible refer to anyone other than one or both of the Princes of the Tower was not mentioned more than once, either. I also suspect, given your review, that the American version must have cut out parts of certain interviews present in the UK version, as some of what interview content you mentioned wasn't familiar to me Even if we ever do get DNA, I question whether that will fully silence the theorists out there. From my view, unfortunately, so long as there is money to be made on a sensationalist view of history, someone out there will try to make it.
I wonder why PBS was allowed part of it? That's interesting. Maybe Channel 4 has some sort of deal with them? I don't know. Yes, I agree that for some people no amount of evidence will be enough, but for most, if the bones in the Tower turned out to be the boys, that would be good enough for them.
@@HistoryCalling PBS does do (near) simultaneous showings now and then. Certainly we've had a few really popular dramas that did. According to the Almighty Wikipedia, SotD also began as a documentary series on your Channel 4; I guess that'd explain why they still share some of the docs
Finding King Richard in that parking lot and giving him a proper burial was a big thing. Now we also have DNA that can be used to check the DNA of the kids they found in the tower. That said.. it became a obsession and it is a way of making money out of this story. That is my take on it. There is NOTHING that bring anything new to the story. Unless you really want HenryVII to be the killer and white wash the character of King Richard. And that they are doing. That is my opinion on this situation. Finding the skeleton of King Richard does not make you Sherlock Holmes and it doesn`t got anything to do with " knowing " what happened to the kids, beside what is already out.
@@HistoryCalling As another commenter has said I think they are a regular distributor of BBC and Channel 4 content. They're our government-funded channel, so in the past they have been pretty good about presenting historical content as is, but it seems like even they have fallen prey in the last several years to the desire here for everything to be dramatic. Their version of the documentary also had an American narrator edited into many scenes, presumably to give additional context to watchers who aren't familiar with the history.
You've presented yet another wonderful analysis proving that one must always take materials intended for a general audience with a grain of salt. Well done! Another TH-cam channel that deals with history posted an excited short summary, and I was immediately skeptical (I haven't seen the documentary). You coalesced my unease, and I shared a link to this video on their channel.
Think this historian needs to read Langley's book on the Princes. I've read it and all her questions are answered. Might make her rethink a bit about what she states here.
I find it hard to believe that Richard kept the 2 biggest threats to his claim secretly alive and well - as you say yourself at that time Richard had zero problem eliminating any threat or rival - I think I've said before that Shakespeare had Richard figured out - and he was no big fan of the Tudors actually
@@FandersonUfoHenry 7th ( 1st Tudor King ) had a dodgy claim to the throne based on his ancestor marrying a dowager Queen . But then Richard 3rd wasn’t exactly Mr goody two shoe either . He wasn’t even the “ Spare “ but when his elder brother and King asked him to look after his boys if something happened to him he didn’t think on Uncle Richard would want the top job for himself.
On the subject of Lady Jane Grey's execution: You're defining "child" with a modern definition. Today, a 16-year-old would be considered a child. In Medieval times, however, a 16-year-old was not a child. By the time a female was 16, she was very often married and had had one or more children. 16 was an adult in their eyes. That's not to say that they wouldn't have killed children, but Queen Mary I did not consider Lady Jane a child, nor did the public.
The concept of childhood and what age defined someone to still be a child in a society only started to be discussed in the 19th-20th century. People need to see the whole concept and how society changed through centuries
Thank you for another fascinating video, HC. I listen to your wars of the roses play list over and over and I think I am finally starting to be able to keep up! I found the first document (the pike account list) to be very compelling to think about. It would be so preferable to think the “princes” survived, but until we get more solid evidence it just doesn’t make sense. Also, Margaret of Burgundy is an intriguing woman I would like to learn more about.
*I wasn't expecting much from the documentary, but it was even worse! That woman managed to drag a whole bunch of people into her delirium. Embarrassing!*
@@EM-lz9kg To be fair, that was a really lucky guess. And as others have pointed out, some of her conduct even during that was less than professional. Like when she started crying just because it was discovered that his spine was very deformed.
I haven't watched the new documentary yet, but I personally believe, that since Richard, Duke of Gloucester felt it was necessary to murder Anthony Woodville, William Hastings, and Richard Grey, once he seized control of King Edward V, it shows just how far Richard was willing to go, in order to usurp the throne from the young King, and that included hiding them away, and eventually having them murdered, so he could ascend the throne of England unchallenged. He paved the way for himself to become King, by getting rid of everyone he believed was a threat to his plans. He had the motive and the means, because he was an evil, power-hungry snake.
I doubt he'd be stupid enough to disappear them though. He came up with at least vaguely legitimate reasons to dispose of any rivals in a way that didn't make him look illegitimate as king. His plan was most likely to keep the boys locked up until they were old enough to be "discovered plotting his overthrow"
Great video! I really enjoyed your forensic breakdown of the ideas put forward. My first thought watching the doc was ‘but wouldn’t Elizabeth of York recognise her brother?’ This conveniently wasn’t thought about by Ms Langley who seemed to me to be so convinced of her theory that both brothers survived that she skewed the ‘evidence’ to prove herself right. Still it’s an intriguing subject and perhaps will prompt a DNA test on the bones?
Back in the 1990s I was quite the Ricardian. Bu that view crumbled when i discovered that his seizure of the throne split the Yorkists driving Elizabeth Woodville to plot with Margaret Beaufort to install their children, married, as the first Tudor monarchs Richard III's actions, as you reminded me, are not those of a loyal and protective uncle, and I now definitely think he did murder the boys. He might have been a loyal lieutenant but he has a Big Brother controlling him, and when Edward IV was dead it seems to me Richard simply could not resist the temptation to seize the throne and murder all those who got in his way. not just the boys but Rivers and Hastings. I don't think my view is necessarily proven but i think the burden of proof lies with those who assert otherwise and they have not succeeded in this thank you for this excellent video, it shows history done properly such as i never had the training nor, more importantly, the patience to ever do myself
William Shakespeare relied on Queen Elizabeth. She was a royal patron of the arts. We know that she attended several of his shows; there’s even stories that she requested certain characters to make appearances (she seems to have been a Falstaff fan). If the Queen liked a play, Shakespeare could be certain that others would. Her influence was invaluable. So the Bard had a vested interest in keeping her happy. Thus, he wrote Richard III for the Tudors. It’s no wonder, then, that he made Richard into such a villain. By doing so, he turned Henry VII- and, by extension, Elizabeth- into a national hero, capable of defeating archetypal e
*All these fools saying "Just DNA test the remains!" obviously haven't thought one bit about the consequences. Chances are high for the skeletons not belonging to the princes (remember that plenty of bodies have been buried in and around the Tower, including children's). Once DNA proves that the bones don't belong to the princes, then what? What should be done with the bones? What should be done with the Westminster Abbey monument? And how many more royal remains would be expected to be tested to prove whatever other theories some people might have about other mysteries?* *The late Queen was wiser than most of us.*
What I find most unconvincing about the documentary is that all the evidence presented for the Princes' survival ultimately has a specific motive - to exonerate Richard. It's not just examining the possibility that the Princes escaped or survived, but rather specifically trying to prove a narrative where Richard is innocent. It's ultimately about Richard, not about the Princes.
Richard, might possibly, have been smuggled out of sanctuary by their mother, but Edward is a much less likely "survivor." I tend to lean into the Richard III had botg boys killed. Its tempting to believe that somehow, someway, they escaped. But i think that is largely due to just how sad their story is. Along with poor Theodore Plantagenet 😢
Another possible motivation Margaret of Burgundy to support boys claiming to be her nephews is that it would exonerate her brother of his imfamous crime, which would have a big impact on her family's reputation.
I was in London and visited the Tower just a couple days after the documentary aired. It was so fascinating to see the real place. I wish that the remains would be DNA tested for some clarity
Me neither until last Saturday. I hadn't really noticed that it was coming out. Cue and exceptionally busy week for me in order to get it ready in time.
There is a Zeeland in The Netherlands, it borders Belgium. It has a strong maritime history and is on the river Schelde an incredibly important waterway. It is also very close to Sluis, or Sluys, somewhere that often is mentioned in relation to Margaret of Burgundy.
“I find this to be a case of seeing what you want to see.” That quote quite neatly sums it all up: this is yet another case of Langley cherry-picking facts to suit her pro-Ricardian bias. She is actually a talented writer of historical fiction-even when said fiction is a bit far-fetched-but that bias shines through in all of her work. When it is relegated to the world of historical fiction, those more far-fetched ideas are perfectly fine, in order to make the work more entertaining, as that is the ultimate goal of historical fiction: to entertain the reader. It’s when she tries to mold actual history to fit her ideas that it becomes a problem. The historian’s work is there to educate and to preserve knowledge, not purely to entertain. Facts matter more, and the methods of finding and compiling those facts are far more stringent, and rightfully so. Bias will of course still happen-we are all only human, after all-but an historian must work to put those biases aside; Langley consistently does the opposite. I also find this latest theory of hers to be somewhat grasping at straws. Her bias demands she find a way to absolve Richard of this most heinous crime, and she has certainly gone to great lengths to try to accomplish that. She first tried the idea that Richard had no idea what had happened to the boys, but that naturally meant someone else must be the culprit, so she tried to make Lady Margaret Beaufort that culprit. In doing so, she disregarded the well-established details of Margaret’s life in order to cast her as the killer. When people found that hard to swallow, Queen Anne Neville was put forth as a possible candidate, most notably in the televised version of “The White Queen,” which made it appear as if both women could possibly have been guilty, despite a total lack of evidence. And now, she is grasping at yet another way to exonerate Richard III: by claiming the boys were not murdered at all, by Richard or anyone else. And with all such bias-based words, the contradictions and omissions are staggering. Here are the facts we know to be true and accurate: Richard had both boys put in the Tower of London with painfully spurious justifications. He then set out to destroy their claims to the throne and usurp the crown, successfully. Shortly after a botched attempt to free the boys, Richard dismissed their servants and stopped paying for their upkeep. The boys then simply vanished. Richard did not make any attempt to investigate their disappearance, which he almost certainly would have done had he thought anyone else was behind the disappearance, if for no other reason than to identify and remove any threats to his rule…which is the sort of thing Richard was ruthlessly carrying out at that time. It’s why few people demanded Richard produce the boys or account for their whereabouts: he had proven himself capable and more than willing to eliminate anyone in his way, even former allies. And he had complete control over the Tower, and had used that castle to remove his perceived enemies in at least one well-documented case. But most damning of all evidence: the person who benefited most from the boys’ deaths was Richard III. It’s the conclusion most people believed at the time, even before the discovery of the skeletal remains, and it’s the conclusion that is still the most believable centuries later. The truth is that unless some extraordinary evidence is discovered (such as a believable confession from whichever of Richard’s men actually carried out the killings) at this late date, we will never know how the boys actually died. Even King Charles III allows the skeletal remains to be disinterred from Westminster Abbey (something his mother was strongly against for these and all royal remains), and if those remains have any useable DNA that can be extracted from them, it would only solve one part of the mystery: their identity. It very likely will not tell us how they died, and it most definitely cannot tell us who ordered the killings and who carried out those orders. Despite that, I am still personally in favor of the exhumation (provided it would not permanently damage that beautiful urn by Sir Christopher Wren). It would at the very least put to an end theories like the one in that documentary, and perhaps allow the little King and the Prince his brother to finally rest in peace. That…was more lengthy than I intended, and to anyone who actually read this far, I thank you for it.
Have to correct you. Phillipa Langley is the amateur historian. Philippa Gregory is the writer of historical quasi fiction. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.
I'm not sure Lady Jane Gray's situation shows the willingness to murder children. While we would see her as a child now, at the time 16 was viewed as a young adult and she was a married woman. Also, her situation was very different and Mary I wanted to let her live. Circumstances required otherwise.
As always, I really enjoyed your post, thank you! ❤ "Breakneck speed" or not, your conclusions are sound and well thought out. I agree that all but one of the documents appear to be consistent with the Warbeck plot. That receipt is fascinating and deserves more attention. Being in Texas, I watched the PBS presentation and was a bit underwhelmed with what I saw. Perhaps they didn't want to confuse us so it was "dumbed down" a bit, as so many things are, for the US audience. 😊 I'll watch it again and stop and rewind as I go. I look forward to seeing your next video
As to midevil Catholics not killing children, King John had his nephew Arthur killed, there was much contemporary feeling he had killed Arthur himself. While Matt Lewis has a wonderful podcast, he is the first to admit he's a Ricardian, so I'm not surprised to see him take Richard's side. For reasons you outlined here, I don't think they made much of a case in the documentary.
Er, Arthur wasn’t a child - he was adult enough to lead an army and among other feats besiege his own Granny, the still-formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine! A better example might be the last McWilliam claimant to the throne of Scotland, a baby girl (name lost to history); King Alexander II put paid to her claim by having one of his supporters bash out her brains against the Mercat Cross in Forfar. Note that Alexander himself was only 17 at the time, having succeeded to the throne of Scotland a year before, and so was as much or as little a “child” as Arthur was!
This documentary has not been aired in Australia yet so I have not seen it. It will be shown tomorrow evening (Sunday 26 November) local time and has already sparked some interest due to heavy advertising. We were sceptical and watched your reaction with great interest. Roll on the chance for us to see it tomorrow.
Well - I watched it! But not all of it because I got irritated with the poor science and interpretation of evidence. It has taken me several days of consideration to work out my true opinions. The worst piece of 'evidence' in my opinion is the free acceptance of what would be, in a legal scenario, hearsay evidence, namely the item from the Dutch archives. Not only is not a primary source it a translation of a secondary source lowering its credibility to zero. If there was independent evidence to support its contentions the it would have some credibility but with no provenance at all it cannot be considered. That it should be accepted without question by a working barrister is amazing, by a judge is unbelievable! It was at this point I lost my temper with the programme and switch it off. A pity really because I am familiar with Phillipa Langley's work and, usually, respect her.
Very well thought out and presented 👏. I wish that John Everett Millais' painting of Edward 5th and Prince Richard was ditched though - maybe its just me but its awful!
I am going to read Langley's book before I decide how persuasive I feel the evidence is. I believe Matt Lewis' book, the Survival of the Princes in the Tower, is quite good and he seems to be less polarizing than Langley. Not sure why so many people dislike her but, by the same token why do so many people hate Richard III? I am tired of the assertion that DNA testing of the bones, in the urn, in Westminster Abbey will solve this whole mystery. They won't. All they MIGHT solve is whether the princes are the ones in the urn. Great video, as always, your conclusions are very thought provoking!
Langley deserves enormous praise for doggedly pursuing the recovery of Richard III's remains but the documents she presented are open to interpretation and do not substantially aid her hypothesis that his nephews survived his reign. Also, I dont think people "dislike" Langley as much as they are frustrated by her tendency to shoehorn-in data to fit her preset narrative.
If the contents of the urn were DNA tested and found to be the remains of the Princes we would have proof of the likelihood that Richard had them murdered. This being the root of Langley's theory l think it would go a long way to towards solving the mystery.
As I watched that show, I could not believe that she was trying to say these two pretenders to the throne were actually Edward and Richard. I feel like I have heard all this before. Of course, the new documents speak of them as sons of Edward IV either because the key players believed them to be the real people or because they chose to believe it. Either way, there was little new in this documentary. An archaeologist or historian who goes looking with a preconceived idea will usually find exactly what they are looking for, whether it is there or not. Ms Langley will choose to believe her results because she wants to.
Found this video admirable. Just a quick note: I am not sure if it's been already commented upon before in the comments, but are you confident that the 'Zealand' referred to is the Danish Zealand, and not the Dutch Zeeland? The latter would seem to be a more appropriate staging place for an invasion of England (in terms of geographic proximity).
It is hard for us to understand how brutal family members were with each other. Ms Langley does not think that Richard III was capable of murder, he may not have by his own hand by has had Rivers and his other siblings put to death, the same with Lord Hastings. His older brother George was put to death by their other brother King Edward IV by being drowned in a vat of sweet wine. To get to the throne and keep it, I have no doubt he was capable of having his nephews killed. They disappeared before the Battle of Bosworth when Henry VII came to the throne, so by a balance of probabilities it is likely to be Richard III.
Hi HC, I didn’t see the documentary and by the sound of it I needn’t search it out. You made brilliant counter arguments to all the points made. Your presentation was a great watch so thanks for all your hard work. 👍🏻
Thanks James. I mean it's always worth a look just to see for yourself (I don't want to encourage people to just take my view on things, but always to do their own research), but yeah, I'd be surprised if you were heavily swayed by it.
I love Philippa Langley's enthusiasm and I enjoyed her documentary, it revisited various details and situations from the time. However, all that is known is that those poor boys vanished whilst under the 'protection' of their Uncle Richard of York. He was, shortly after their incarceration, proclaimed King and he had a living son and heir of his own at this point. A veil is drawn over the fate of the princes but understandably people were suspicious. I am a real history buff and I do find Richard a compelling character but I have no emotional investment in this. I would very much love to know what really happened. This story has left a scar on English history. Many thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it.
Did you find any of the evidence the documentary presented persuasive and why? Let me know below and remember to check out my Patreon at www.patreon.com/historycalling and my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
I saw the documentary here in the US and, while I am interested in English history, I don’t have anywhere near your knowledge of it. However, many of the things you cited bothered me as well. Couple that with Langley’s ample history as a Richard III apologist, I just didn’t buy her arguments.
GREAT job! You are always thorough and offer another perspective. The Ricardians want very badly to redeem a man who in his own lifetime did all that he could to make himself look horrible.
Loved the documentary it was great and gave me much thought, Henry Vll is involved in it all imagine arriving at the tower and finding them there, so many terrorist
It's too bad you don't have access to the Dutch document.
I am Dutch and could translate it.
There's your bias, right there, "Richard III *apologist*". As if Richardson's don't dive deep into research to arrive at conclusions based upon evidence.
Last year, there were reports in the media that King Charles III was considering authorizing DNA testing for the bones found under the stairwell. "Speaking at Sandon Literature Festival in Staffordshire, Tracy Borman, joint curator of Historic Royal Palaces, said: “He has said he would like an investigation to go ahead, so that we can determine, once and for all, how the young royals died.” I would love to see this happen in my lifetime.
This. This is what needs to happen to put this (and the boys) to rest.
If he really said that, he’s delusional: no study of the bones could achieve that.
There is of course a very strong possibility that they could turn out not to be 15th-century bones at all (the Tower was already half a millennium old in 1483, and of course the site had been inhabited for a millennium or so even before that) and/or not even male! In which case we’d be exactly where we were before.
And even if they did turn out to be two boys deceased in the 1480s aged about 10 and about 12, the elder of whom had spent two years in the Welsh Marches shortly before his death, both sharing the same DNA as Richard, which would identify them pretty conclusively as the Princes, it’s vanishingly unlikely that any cause of death could be established, and impossible to fix the date of death closer than a window of a couple of decades. So they could give no clue as to when they were murdered or by whom, or even whether they were murdered at all. (It’s perfectly possible that while in Richard’s custody they just died, as so many medieval people did, of water-borne / food-borne / infectious illness, and Richard knew perfectly well that if he announced their deaths just about everybody would take for granted that he had murdered them, and felt that just having them disappear from sight was a better option for him.)
@@VicDennis-np1tu - On a personal level, I'm not concerned with the cause of death -- or if it were found to be murder, who carried it out. I would just like confirmation that the bones currently entombed in an urn in Westminster Abbey are or are not the princes'.
Except they won’t ever do DNA bc they still fear the facts, (even if Charles didn’t recognize it and initially spoke out of turn by suggesting DNA. He was probably advised against it). It undermines claims to the throne and proves an ancestor murdered children to usurp the throne. Then, there might also be more secrets, such as illegitimate children in the line of the throne exposed through the DNA testing and subsequently reveal incongruity. It’s not in their interests. They don’t want a public record of more unsavory history, even when they have plenty of scandals - these are just two more skeletons in the family closet.
My guess is that he may have it done quietly. It's a sensitive issue, one way or the other.
A very good analysis. Another factor about the monk Mancini - even if he did not speak English, he would have spoken Latin as did most learned church people and many other learned people of the time. So he could have discussed such matters with other English contemporaries from the Church and nobility while he was in England and both understood each other since they all spoke Latin. No translator would be needed if both spoke Latin.
Excellent point. I wish I'd thought to mention that now. :-)
Didn't Mancini get his information directly from doctor Argentine who had direct access to the princes?
@@kaloarepo288 And I believe spoke italian
Yes, that's a good point. Latin was spoken among many learned people in that error. A shared language can even occur today. Years ago, I spoke to a WWII veteran who served in Europe. When the war ended, he served as a courier between the Americans and the Soviets. He told me of one instance when he spoke to a Russian tank crewman. Neither spoke the other's language, but they had both learned some German, so they used that.
*Era. I'm guessing autocorrect or speech recognition.
As soon as I saw the name Philippa Langley, I knew the conclusion of her documentary would somehow exonerate Richard III because her bias towards him is very strong. I was (and still am) fascinated by the finding of Richard III’s remains and have watched several documentaries on it. And in every one, she came across as (how do I put this nicely?) obsessed and half in love with Richard. That completely undermined whatever credibility she had. I know there was Tudor propaganda against him (the exaggeration of his scoliosis being one obvious example) and that he may have been an able administrator. But none of that changes that he usurped the throne when his nephews were in his custody and that they disappeared. The “evidence” in this new documentary is not persuasive. I found your analysis to be thorough and appropriately skeptical and much more persuasive.
I do believe the boys were killed by Richard. His desire for power was too strong. Declaring his brother’s children illegitimate is a proof. Then he must finish them to avoid future problems. Why disappear them instead of say that the died of an illness? To create a doubt about Richard as usurper, traitor and murderer. Bodies are proof but vanquish is a mystery. In the other hand, if he was innocent, why to keep a mystery about the children whereabouts? And if they were killed by other hands, why he didn’t launch an investigation to find the culprit and clean his name? Even if they were killed thinking to protect Richard Crown without him knowing, he had to look and execute the person or persons involved. If it was a Richard’s enemy like Margaret Beaufort, this was the perfect opportunity to get her and her son out of his way for good. All of this are circunstancial evidences that can be proved by identifying the bodies. Hope King Charles allows the tests.
It undermined the fact that she actually found him?! The evidence that she did is buried in Leicester Cathedral.
It’s ok to not like her, if I’m honest I don’t particularly. Like her, but I find the constant attempt to undermine her rather unsavoury. People wouldn’t speak this way about a male historian.
I swear, those who favour Richard III are fanatical. I read one book on Richard from a supporter and his whole argument boiled down to 'lawyers keep great track of their documents, so the precontract of Edward the 4th was real'. No other evidence needed apparently
@@ffotograffyddI would talk about male historians this way. I think that Ricardians verge on conspiratorial with little good evidence because they have a parasocial love of Richard and are unwilling to accept the idea that he was a complicated figure. They have a persecution complex because of the Shakespeare Play and have deluded themselves into thinking that people who believe Richard ever wronged anyone think so because of Shakespeare and “Tudor Propaganda” even though shockingly the world is less familiar with the works of Shakespeare than historians might believe.
@@ffotograffydd No, it undermines her credibility in analysing less tangible evidence. I remember how she cried on camera when finding out that Richard had scoliosis, because she was so convinced that everything the Tudors said about him was a lie. She pulled off the coup of a lifetime by actually finding his skeleton, but that doesn't make her other opinions bulletproof.
Personally I think Richard painted himself into a corner, politically speaking, when he seized power to avoid having a child on the throne during turbulent times, and then had to get rid of his nephews despite his earlier loyalty to his brother. His complete silence on the issue suggests a man dealing with overwhelming feelings of guilt, rather than the pantomime villain the Tudors painted him as - which doesn't exonerate him at all, of course!
The fact that their mother believed them to be gone is the strongest evidence to me. It seems very likely that news of their death would have been brought to her, officially or not. Otherwise, she would have continued in the hope of being reunited with them.
If Elizabeth thought Richard killed them, why did she allow her daughters to attend Richard's court festivities? More's story was not written until 50 yrs after the "fact". Why too didn't Henry bring this up when he presented his Bill of Attainder against Richard?
@@abbyrock5684
What choice did she have?
Richard was king. She had to make him believe she was fine with him.
In fact, you know that Elizabeth ended up working with Margaret Beaufort in order to take Richard out.
I think the problem is that you expect her to rise in rebelion immediately. Well....that would not have been so easy. She needed time to find allies who could take Richard out. If you consider how long it did take....you realize it did not take that long. Indeed, its quite possible she started negotiations with the Lancasters pretty soon after her kids were gone.
She had to play her role at court as best as possible. And her daughters had to do the very same thing.
There is 0 evidence their mother thought they were gone .
In fact in 1485 her oldest son Thomas Gray is caught by Henry trying to return to England .
At no point did Elizabeth or her daughters and son ever accuse Richard, even after his death .
Exactly
@@katakauchi
Her actions are all the evidence you need unless you want to consider her completely inept.
Why did she allow her daughter to marry with Henry Tudor if she believed her kids still alive?
Would she not understand that Henry Tudor would be a dangerous rival to her kids? One more on top of Richard.
If the kids were alive, they did not need anyone else wanting to kill them.
And Henry Tudor married with Elizabeth York would have a reinforced claim to the throne, which he would want to use. Those kids would be in his way.
If the kids were alive, Elizabeth Woodville should have negotiated with Margaret in Burgundy. She could flee there with her daughter Elizabeth and get the kids there too. From Burgundy they would be able to get support from Margaret and Maximilian which would like to place a strong ally on the throne of England.
Margaret and Maximilian still tried. Had Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth York remained free, they might have allied with whatever kids Margaret could come up with.
Langley did incredible work in getting a dig organised to find Richard III, in particular her pinpointing where Richard was buried! But I don't think there's any denying her strong bias. Which doesn't make for the best fact finder
Both ‘sides’ of the argument have a bias, that’s why at this stage the question can only be answered by science. Most historians have already taken a position and seem very reluctant to consider any new evidence.
That is my thought too.
She's not all bad, she's just wrong on this.
@@MoMoLuey no I don't want to put her down at all, but she does hold Richard III in such a high regard, it's difficult for me to take her seriously. She was adamant Richard wasn't a 'hunchback' based on nothing at all, only to have severe scoliosis confirmed in the skeleton.
Mattiebeekeeper, the king had scoliosis, not kyphosis. Clothed, he would have had a slightly raised right shoulder. This is not the same thing as kyphosis.
I appreciate your take on this. As a fan of Matt Lewis and an avid listener of Gone Medieval, I was very interested in what was going to be discussed. My skepticism was only strengthened and I felt this conclusion had been rushed and vastly sensationalized. I am ... disappointed in some of those who have participated. I'm not against the idea of one or both princes possibly surviving though it is highly unlikely, and none of the alleged evidence presented has dissuaded me from that stance.
Yes, I'm afraid I just couldn't get onboard with his idea of the real Edward V being crowned in Dublin, whilst posing as his younger cousin who was alive and well in England, then dying at Stoke. There was no evidence at all. Truly, it was very bad history (in fact I can't even call it that. It was pseudo-history/historical fiction).
History calling, You're getting confused. Edward V did not pose as Warwick. This was a Tudor detail that was added later. What was important to note is that Richard III's named heir and cousin of Edward V, the Earl of Lincoln, attended the Dublin coronationYou really need to read Phillipa Langley's new book.
Perhaps you just don't want to accept primary sources. You should stick to your indoctrinated fantasy.
@Moose.-vy5ye History Calling doesn't use modern books and things for her research. She ONLY uses primary sources, which is documentation that can be proven through research and science. Maybe you should consider doing the same.
Andrew, whom are you addressing?
Really cool that Langley found Richard in the parking lot, but she's got a strange obsession with him being this awesome king who never did anything wrong. Rick was a KING, and kings and now presidents and prime ministers have always done crappy things to secure their power. Ricky wasn't any exception. Kill the nephews, keep the throne, yep, sounds legit. I don't think he's the cartoon character in Shakespeare's play, but I do think he's not as lily white as Langley wants to believe.
Actually the location of where Richard III was buried not such a great mystery. It was recorded that Henry VII had him buried in Greyfriars in Leicester. Although the building was demolished it's location was known. What Phillipa Langley was able to do was to raise the funds to enable a dig to go ahead. It didn't take long to uncover the outline of the foundations of Greyfriars and locate the area where Richard III was buried. As for Phillipa Langley pointing to the letter R in the word Parking and saying that is the spot, let us say a fortunate co-incidence.
Thank you for that clarification of facts. I don't remember the facts you have stated being voiced when the remains were found. It always appeared to be that Ms Langley was somehow 'guided' by mystical powers rather than studying old maps and historical documents.@@stephenbarker5162
She is absolutely in love with him. I can’t see any other explaination
@@kaycosette I think so too. And that's really sad and kinda pathetic in a way. I honestly feel sorry for her. It's almost like she's trying to prove her love to a guy who's been dead over 500 years by trying to get everyone to view him as a hero. Like I said, I don't think he was the cartoonish villain Shakespeare paints him as, but he was a king, and kings sometimes do bad things. We all are a mix of hero and villain. We all have an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, always talking to you. Which one you listen to is what makes the difference.
@@stephenbarker5162 Yeah, I saw the show, watched the show with Ricky's reburial too. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out where he was originally buried, lol, all it took was a little research and a tenacious will .
I have NEVER I all these years come across someone on TH-cam who so respectfully expresses disagreement. You must be a wonderful person in real life. God bless
Thank you so much. That's very kind of you. I dunno if it's quite true, but it's lovely to read :-)
I'm definitely of the idea that Margaret of Burgundy definitely THOUGHT that Warbeck was her nephew, which makes it all the more tragic imo. And, of course, even if she knew he was false, why would she not capitalise on a plot to topple a man who she hated
Precisely. I wouldn't rule out the idea that she really believed it either. I wish we had Elizabeth of York on record saying what she thought about it, given that she'd likely have been able to recognise Richard/Perkin one way or the other.
@@HistoryCalling My sense about Elizabeth of York was that she was a survivor, she would likely have "played it safe" and not commented on any of these intrigues.
I absolutely agree with you.
Yeah. She lost her father and one brother in the fight for the throne, and then the make line of her family held onto it for one generation.
The idea of some guy whose claim to the throne wasn't even that strong just swanning in and taking it from her last surviving brother must have rankled.
She also may not have wanted to believe Richard capable of nepoticide, so it could have been wishful thinking on her part.
Perkin/Richard's mother, Elizabeth Woodville, supported him. Henry then shipped his mother-in-law off to a convent for the rest of her life.
As much as i respect Phillipa for her accomplishments, I fear she's making the capital mistake of starting with the conclusion (Richard III wasn't as wicked as people think) and working backwards from that. She's not completely wrong, he definitely wasn't the diabolical villain of Shakespeare's portrayal, but it stretches credulity too thin to consider him in any way a good man.
Not totally disagreeing with you but it does seem strange that he always fully supported his brother Edward 4th so was clearly loyal. I find it hard to believe he would have had his nephews murdered due to his clearly high regard for the king. I think maybe he thought that it would be impossible to have a child on the throne as there were too many ambitions people surrounding him to try and gain power. Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by taking the throne? I think the princes died in the tower of what was called 'jail fever' as it wasn't a healthy environment for anyone let alone children. They would be further weakened by being denied access to the fresh air and the lack of vitamin D. Just my view.
@@56beverleyWhy wouldn't Richard have announced it then and allowed physicians to do autopsies?
His loyalty towards his brother could have been a show, knowing he was closest to power with him on the throne. Or it could have been pure hatred of Elizabeth Woodville that motivated him.
I think starting with a conclusion isn’t all bad, but I’d prefer a more clearly defined hypothesis. Proving he’s not pure evil I believe she accomplished quite well, but proving that he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of his nephews, well...i don’t exactly think she provided any real evidence that would remove Richard III as a suspect from either the direct actions resulting in their deaths, failure in his duty of care given his time and position, or proof the boys lived....it might be more that on a balance of the available evidence, that her hypothesis isn’t exactly supported. I think this area of history still falls into the ‘more evidence is needed’ category
This is exactly it.
I was stunned when she referred to this as a "cold case." Homicide & Missing Persons Detectives (almost) never start a case with the answer & work their way back to pick the evidence which best suits their theory.
@@lunar686 if you're trying to be scientific, it is literally the worst thing you can do.
I would have a hard time believing that Richard would send one or both the princes away and allow them to come back at any time to challenge the crown
Especially since he planned on keeping the crown. Why would he let one boy out of his sight? I feel as you do
yeah would be very stupid. And you don't get the crown the way he did when you are that stupid.
They were declared illegitimate and removed from the succession. Henry vii declared them as legitimate so when he married thier sister it improved his claim. Henry never accused Richard of having them killed. What is known about Richard was that he was incredibly loyal to his brother. I don't see a reason why he could have had them killed.
@@Trebor74 Few cared about what Parliament said about a supposed illegitimacy, any more than what Parliament said about who was really king.
"Stone dead hath no fellow".
Yes, if Richard did send the boys away then he was very naive.
One thing that raises skepticism for me is that the people avowing that Lambert Simnel/Perkin Warbeck was one of the Princes in the Tower are always people who were at a distance from the legitimate princes - cousins, courtiers. As you mention, Elizabeth of York would have seen Perkin Warbeck and would surely have recognized him if he was Richard. But also, there were five other York siblings alive at the time, and Elizabeth Woodville didn't die until 1492. If either of the pretenders were the actual princes, couldn't they have gotten support from their siblings or mother? Or at the very least, acknowledgement that "Yes, this person is my brother." The fact that they didn't, and the closest level of familial support that they had was their aunt with a known grudge against Henry VII, really seals the deal for me that the pretenders were NOT the princes.
Exactly . All Elizabeth Woodville would have had to do was ask either Simnel or Warbeck a question that only her real son would know. Possibly, since children change so much from childhood to late teens, she might not have easily recognized them even if they were her children. It does seem likely that she made some inquiries about her son’s’ fate and reached her own conclusion that they were dead.
Elizabeth of York never saw either Simnel nor Warbeck, nor did Elizabeth Woodville. In 1487 Henry stripped Elizabeth of everything she owned and had her confined in Bermondsey abbey. Elizabeth of York also never saw either of them. Before forcing Warbeck to read that ridiculous confession, Henry had him beaten until his face was unrecognizable. Warbeck’s resemblance to EdwardIV was startling.
@nbenefiel I have always wondered about Elizabeth Woodville's oldest son from her first marriage, Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset. He knew Richard better than anyone and ran his household.
@nbenefiel Perkin Warbeck was brought to court with his wife, Catherine Gordon, who was one of Elizabeth's ladies in waiting. She probably saw him during Henry's return and later around court. Several of Elizabeth's sisters were also at court at this time and would have seen them.
As for Lambert Sinnel, it was obvious he wasn't the young earl of Warick as he was in the tower at the time. I'm sure Henry and Elizabeth checked to make sure it was still him. Sinnel was made a cook in the royal kitchens and rose to the rank of Falconer, so Elizabeth would have undoubtedly saw him too.
Also, there is no actual evidence as to the reason Elizabeth Woodville went into a nunnery, it could be for several reasons.
Philippa is clearly very passionate about R3, and that did result in her finding his remains. But I remember in the documentary about finding Richard, she tried draping Richard’s Royal standard over the box of remains as it was being transported for DNA testing. The archeologist in charge stepped in and said no tests have been done and there is no proof who it was and didn’t allow it. She was so blindly obsessed it was him, she bypassed all logic and reason.
Also, the obvious evidence Richard had the princes killed are the two “prince sized” skeletons buried under a construction project that occurred right when they went missing. Has anyone explained who these two might have been if not the princes? Was it common practice to hide children’s bodies at the tower? How many more might be there?
Someone needs to start a petition to ask the King to DNA test those bones before anymore Game of Thrones ideas about history come up.
The bones could well be that of the princes, as the circumstances of their discovery seem to fit almost too conveniently the account presented by Shakespeare based on Thomas More's investigation. Unfortunately, and despite no such confirmation of royal identity, the Crown so far as denied any request to submit the remains to modern forensic examination including possible DNA analysis. While I understand a reluctance to exhume royal remains when that act is done primarily out of morbid curiosity, the bones in question are NOT the undoubted remains of the Princes in the Tower, the fate of the princes is an enduring historic mystery, and modern forensics may well determine whether the bones are in fact those of the princes, or at least the impossibility that they could be so.
There may be some softening. I believe Prince Philip provided his DNA to confirm the remains of the Romanov family in 2018. It would be a good mystery to put to rest.
@@chrish2277 but that was a different situation all together. It was also more recent than the boys in the tower now wasn't it
And you think that let's Henry 7 off the hook?
and yet she was right to do that wan't she?
A point I would like to make is that would Henry VII have 're-legitimised' Elizabeth of York and her siblings if he wasnt absolutely certain that the princes in the tower were dead?
If they weren't dead, he would have lost his claim to the throne.
He, and his formidable mother, had a strong need for those two to be dead. Margaret Beaufort was a lady in waiting to Queen Anne, so she had the court connections and power needed.
And she did correspond with Elizabeth Woodville ...
Excellent point!
Richard already did that. Not officially, but he was in the process of arranging marriages for the girls. Lots easier to arrange royal weddings for legitimate daughters of a king and nieces of another one.
Now did Richard actually kill the boys or did something else happen like illness? Everyone with the means usually left London in the summer because of illness. I can’t imagine even the royal rooms in the Tower being a really healthy place for a couple of preteen boys to be locked up in. It was like they were there, then they weren’t. Someone like Richard trying to paint himself as just caring about the country I would like to think he would come up with a better story.
The original "de-legimisation" was such absurd nonsense that nobody believed it in the first place.
absolutely.
As much as I'd like to believe Richard didn't have the boys killed, my logical brain just doesn't think he would have let them live. I appreciate and admire the work Ms. Langley did to find Richard III (I've watched a documentary on the topic and found it fascinating), but I agree with you that she tends to paint him in a better light than he deserves. "The Princes in the Tower" is a topic that really interests me - and breaks my heart. To me, it's such a cruel story, like Lady Jane Grey. I wish there was a definitive answer about the skeletons interred at Westminster Abbey. Thank you for this look into the new "evidence" and your insights.
Why are the remains not DNA tested?
Queen Elizabeth II 36:26 wouldn’t allow it. Hopefully King Charles will be open to it.
@@user-np7dv2rx4c I hope so, too...
@@LeslieSunshine17One reason is that then it means having to acknowledge another potential king and going into Henry's history and all that
What if someone did kill them while they were under his watch knowing that he would be blamed? Or "kidnapped" them while he was trying to hide them from harm?
Excellent assessment. Personally, I find the subsequent behaviour of Elizabeth Woodville the most compelling reason to believe both boys were dead. It's inconceivable that if either were alive, they wouldn't have contacted her.
The documents discovered are fascinating in showing how the fate of the 'princes' captured the imagination at the time & illustrate how interlinked the politics across Europe was. Their discovery, for me, is valuable because it shows that there's more to be uncovered about other historical events. 😊 On this though, I accept your assessment of the new evidence.
Yes, I think the documents are very interesting in their own right too, even though I don't interpret them in the same way as the TV documentary team ultimately did. I agree also that Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour strongly suggests a belief that her younger sons were dead. Poor woman - she lost so much just in that one year.
I believe the opposite. In order to believe Elizabeth Woodville thought her children were dead, you'd have to believe she'd hand her daughters over to their murderer and that she'd never have a mass said or publicly state her sons were dead. I think she knew they were alive, was playing both sides, and hoped that Henry Tudor would rid her of Richard and then one of her sons would rid her of Henry Tudor. It backfired. It also explains why Henry Tudor had her packed away to a nunnery. I've always heard that framed as mother-in-law drama, which is very misogynistic. Elizabeth Woodville was a power player, and if her sons were dead, she would have said so publicly.
Lucy, Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour SUPPORTS her belief that the boys were alive. There's proof of this. When discussing history, you can't base objective facts on feelings, and especially what you would do.
Not disagreeing with you on this but from what I have heard Elizabeth was quite docile and according to the times knew she was meant to be meek, obey and never question her husband. After all she wasn't their mother but just a sister. It also seems clear that she thought her brothers were dead but she did apparently make various appeals to free her nephew from the tower.
But if Elizabeth Woodville knew or believed that one or other of the pretenders was a son of hers and came out in support it would have had a big and maybe decisive impact on their success. Interesting that she did not.
There was no way she was ever going to come to the conclusion that Richard hadn’t killed them. I’m glad that Rob Rinder asked all the right questions though 😊
Yes, he was better than I necessarily expected him to be (given that he's a lawyer, not an historian). Now there were still some areas in which he didn't do as well, but I think that's to be expected when he's working so far outside his own wheelhouse. I'd have been mighty impressed if he'd known about Lord Lincoln's movements or the existence of Arthur Plantagenet for instance. He also seemed to misunderstand what the authentication of the documents meant. He appeared to think the experts had authenticated the manuscripts' contents, rather than just that they came from late 15th c. Europe.
@@HistoryCallingah yes. I can see that happening.
Well there’s no evidence that he did.
I dont consider her a historian. Head of his fan club yes. She is so enamoured of her subject, with no evidence to support this view she thinks he could do little wrong.
And there was no way she was going to come to the conclusion that you would never find the body of Richard 111. I'm glad she persisted and asked the right questions to the right people !
She has a habit of ignoring information that points to anything that makes Richard look bad. We need more people who want to find the truth, who have theories and change their minds if evidence points in another direction. Not people who ignore information if it doesnt fit their narrative or twists it to mean something else. This woman has done great work but she’s oddly obsessed with Richard
She found his remains, so don't dismiss her theories so quickly
she has gotten to where she looking for her truth not the truth
@@msinvincible2000 no she didn't. The team of which she was a member, not a leader, discovered the remains. The place where he was buried had been known for years before, but it was in the middle of a busy city, in a place that was constantly occupied until recently. She was important as an instigator, and was included in every stage of the investigation and every press conference except the ones presenting the DNA evidence, but the project was not hers.
There are two papers that were published before PL got involved, one of which, the David Baldwin one, was widely reported in the newspapers of the time. They are both available, and while Baldwin posits the place of his burial and dismissed the earlier story of the body being thrown in the river, the later one is more detailed.
Well all the information painting him bad were done by people who weren't even born at the time and were literally puppets under the monarchs at the time moore was henry viiis close man and Shakespeare not wanting to go against Elizabeth nothing at the time says anything about richard harming the boys he had no reason to
To be honest if Richard III was willing to kill senior nobles without any form of legal niceties why wouldn’t he kill the two people who stood between him and the throne he so coveted?
The hypothetical question that interests me is: if Henry VII had found the boys alive, would they have lived for more than a few minutes after their discovery?
Henry needed Elizabeth of York to be legitimate for a strong claim on the throne, and to become king he needed the boys to be dead.
Henry or his mother had strong motives to see the boys dead.
Interesting question. While I believe that the boys had a good chance to get out of the tower, and likely did, I shudder at the thought that Henry VII may have found them alive. They would not have lasted a few minutes alive.
@@lazygardens True. But as much as I despise H7 he didn´t kill the boys either.
@@lazygardens Yeah but the boys were already dead when Henry VII had his coup. It was the main reason why his mother, Margaret Beaufort, managed to gain support of the nobility. Because they all believe the two boys had been executed in an act of tyranny by Richard III.
@@Alejojojo6 How do you know they were dead?
Watched the original documentary and drove my husband mad by muttering 'that proves nothing' throughout- and laughed aloud at the idea that children were not murdered/judicially killed at the period. So much was a matter of believing with a very low level of evidence, and as you say, ignoring sources they didn't want to believe while enthusiastically accepting others no more credible that supported the narrative. Translated from the original Dutch ?? Sadly many people watching casually will accept the story uncritically and presumably are more likely to buy the related book. It would be good if programmes like this could be paired with others presenting the opposite version- your excellent and measured response for instance.
Nathen Amin was interviewed for 6hrs yet his bit on the programme was mins he had objection
While it’s true that Richard III was likely not the cartoonish villain portrayed by Shakespeare, the fact of the matter is that he was a powerful political player determined to seize and maintain power for himself in the context of decades of brutal civil war and familial infighting. No king in that context can ever be a good man if they wish to remain king. I believe he was capable of and willing to kill the boys. He was cunning, manipulative, fearless, and focused on a singular goal. The boys had to die for him to achieve what he wanted, so they did. It’s that simple.
Except their deaths definitely caused him problems. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but imagine what the public must have thought of a man who would take in little children and then kill them? Shakespeare showed us some of that public opinion, I think.
Agreed. He was the king when they ‘disappeared’ so whoever killed them must have had his authority to do so. No one would have dared to bump off the king’s nephews, legitimate or not, without his nod. Poor Philippa. She’s beyond reason.
@@ARiddle1986
When you overthrow a king, you need to kill him so he does not escape and raise an army against you or so nobody raises an army in their name. Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI were murdered in prison for this reason. Edward V and his brother vanished right after a failed attempt to get them out of the tower. If they had been rescued, Richard would have faced civil war and death or exile if he lost. That's why he had them killed.
There was a bigger downside to killing children than adults but it was just too dangerous to let them live. The real question is whether Richard could have survived if he had not overthrown the king. People have argued that the Woodvilles would have had him killed once Edward V was ruling in his own right.
Once he usurped the throne, he had to kill his nephews. If he did not have to overthrow the king to survive, he was evil and Shakespeare's portrayal of him is fair. If he had no good choices and killed them to prevent civil war and to survive, it is more of a grey area. Even then, he was not the hero his fans argue he was.
Exactly
Every english king who usurped the throne had their predecessor murdered. I believe Richard was no exception
How hard is it to believe that two boys go missing and then the bodies of two boys are found buried in the walls of the place where they were last seen with the same approximate age and from the same approximate time period.? How hard is it really?
What do you mean "from the same approximate time period"?
We obviously have no idea of the time period the two children belonged to!
If anything, them having been found at a depth of 3 m (10 ft) underneath the Tower seems to indicate they had lived well before the two princes. Besides, they were, apparently, not the only child skeletons to be found in the Tower.
@@francesco245 I understood that two male skeletons roughly the same age as the missing princes were found walled up in a hidden chamber under the stairs of the turret where the two princes went missing. Of course there were other children’s bodies found on the grounds. But the place in which the unidentified boys’ bones were found had been placed there (to reiterate) at the time that the princes went missing. It just seems why to coincidental to not be the missing princes.
Maybe someone wanted it to be believed that Richard III killed them. Also and because of that; even if the skeletons are those of the princes it does not tell who killed them. It is the same as with many issues even today: things seem to point unequivocally to some or other conclusion and it is only later that it becomes clear that this conclusion was wrong. Also there is the thing of something being plausible. It is not plausible that Richard III killed his nephews, but it is very plausible that Henry VII did and he wanted people to believe that Richard had done it.
The problem with these skeletons is that they were first dug up and thrown in a pit with dirt and other bones, and then someone connected the dots and came after them. But they might have mixed up with other bones. And still there were no real test on them, just a visual analysis and after that, on the XX Century they did another analysis, but only based on the reports of the first one.
Well when the bones are incomplete and mixed in with chicken wings and other bones it's not very hard actually. Is it possible ? Yes. Is it likely ? Not in that slaughter house 😂
I think your presentation is well laid out, thorough and precise. As you stated, "his silence was deafening."
As it would be if Buckingham had them killed without Richard's orders while he was away on his royal progress North: just at around the time they were seen no more. In that event, could he have spoken the truth? Who would believe him that he had had no involvement? Richard couldn't have moved against Buckingham immediately for that reason, but after hearing the king's reaction (after Richard returned the two had had "an unholy row"), Buckingham knew he was living on borrowed time. How else can one explain his revolting against Richard in favor of Henry Tudor, a man he never even met? If nothing else, Buckingham would have hoped that Richard would be killed as a result of the revolt and hopefully the truth would die with him as would have the actual killers. If you have some time, please read my recent comment here going into this. Thank you.
This documentary is a perfect example of someone having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support their argument, rather than letting the facts lead them.
Absolutely!
Not quite sure from this what side you’re on ?
@@callumclark3358 well it’s not Philippa Langley’s side. I think that she sees only what she wants to see and looks for evidence to back up her already made up mind.
@@ewanmaxwell3267 I understand that the child remains found in the Tower are still being preserved, but not made available for analysis. If, at some point it is possible to identify the Princes in these remains, I wonder how the Ricardians will react ? Their position has a lot in common with other contemporary conspiracy theories, and I would expect a range of reactions, from flat denial of the evidence to acceptance of the facts, but there’s nothing, even in theory, that would convince them of Richard’s guilt.
@@callumclark3358 I completely agree I’m certain they would just adapt as they did when they found out Richard III had a hunch back after saying it was Tudor propaganda for years.
The semi-idolization of Richard III is so odd to me. I can see no way that either boy ever made it out of the Tower alive- they posed far too great a threat to Richard who was very clearly setting himself up to be King at the time. To that end, Richard is the only person with means and motive to have them killed. Even if Margaret Beauford and/or Henry VII wanted them dead, they had no way to reach them.
Absolutely agree. The Plantagenets were power crazed monsters who had no respect for human life. Richard was no better than the rest of them, a man of his time and his blood. He saw the problem rival claimants to the throne caused in the Wars of the Roses, hence the murder of Henry V1 and his son. He wasn’t going to have that problem in his reign.
It's an over-correction from him being portrayed as a vicious ugly monster.
Thank you for doing this video at breakneck speed HC. Whilst I am happy to acknowledge Phillipa Langley's considerable acheivement in finding Richard 3rd, I am just as sceptical about some of this new evidence. Very little proper testing done on these bits of paper. No ink testing and no provenance on some of them. I do think she is on the right path in terms of finding more documentation on the continent, however, just accepting them on face value is not correct validation technique. Also, we have to accept that it is highly possible that both Margaret of Burgundy and Emperor Maximilian could have been completely duped or had their own reasons for believing imposters. I agree completely with your conclusions HC and have read in several places that Henry 7th refused to allow Elizabeth of York sight of Perkin Warbeck. She is supposed to have agreed to stay in her apartment when Perkin was in court. If she recognised her "brother" then her own position and that of her children was in jeopardy. It must have been very hard not to look though!
As for digging people up, I don't really agree with it, but in this case, I think we should be considering Perkin Warbeck's grave in the Dutch church Austin Friars, near the ToL. His dna would show if he was Richard or an imposter. This would clarify all the stories about him and would leave the 2 people in the Abbey as still potential Princes in the Tower. It would be intetesting to hear what other eminent historians think about this programme. History is about finding facts that are verifiable, I don't think we got that in the programme. 😕
What a great idea! I've never heard that suggested! I'm not sure if we could always count on getting DNA from a skeleton that old, since HC has already pointed out how much other famous people's bones have disintegrated over time, but wouldn't it be great if that could be done! Of course, most people are already convinced Warbeck was an imposter.
Great comment. I agree.
Impossible because the Dutch church in Austin Friars was bombed by the Nazis and completely obliterated. No way would any DNA have been found even the next day & certainly not now. Try to keep up.
Whatever your opinion of Richard's guilt/innocence, let's be real: if this guy was alive today he's the kind of person who would appear on the front page of the Sun or the Daily Mail side bar of shame with headlines like "Most Hated Man in England?" and "Child Killer Breaks His Silence: The Tudors Lied About Me"
What a pile of BS
right. the english tabloids are fonts of truth and honesty.
Richard III almost certainly saw no political advantage in keeping the two Princes alive to challenge him. His fairly tenuous grip on the throne was his major concern and he didn't care that secretly killing them might eventually lead to the appearance of future pretenders to the throne. I see no reason to doubt Mancini's assessment of the situation, since he was present, yet far removed from the political aspects of the situation. He had no "axe to grind" and his report of the "word on the London streets" can probably be taken at face value. When Q. Elizabeth Woodville switched to supporting Lady Margaret Beaufort in the claim of her own son Henry Tudor, I suspect she had probably received private information about the Prince's deaths. All the other claimants seem simply to be the pawns of powerful interests seeking the ultimate position of influence.
I am not convinced by the "new evidence" presented so far.
I’m glad you covered this “hot” topic and that I wasn’t the only one left underwhelmed and unconvinced by the documentary. Phew! Richard III was yet again glossed over and defeated by his usual cheerleaders. There were no compelling evidences whatsoever that what Mrs Langley and her team found can be proven beyond the reasonable doubt. This would never fly in court.
I must say that I thoroughly enjoy your channel and I always look forward to your Friday night history calls. This one was particularly good and it was interesting to hear your thoughts and opinions about it.
Very thorough rebuttal HC. I saw the documentary here in the states on PBS. I got the feeling, almost immediately, that Ms. Langley, who is very involved in the Richard III society, wants badly to clear his name. I am certainly no scholar, but why would Richard not show the boys off when rumors began to circulate about the boys being murdered. You mentioned that in the video as well. As for Richard’s ruthlessness, did he not have Elizabeth’s sons from her first marriage murdered? Forgive me, I get pretty muddled up with all these huge families. It seems to me that there are a lot more convincing evidences that he did have them murdered than he sent them away to live their lives in obscurity. Like you mentioned, they fought against, lied about and to one another, and despised and swore allegiance to one another all the time. It is a mystery and a compelling one, but will never be solved without DNA. Don’t hold our breaths for that one. You are able to so clearly make things clear and relatable (as possible). Thank you for that. Well done!
Thanks HC! A very interesting video. I don’t have access to the original documentary, and it looks like I don’t need to. My big problem with conspiracy theories is the sheer number of people who have to keep the secret. Forever! We all know how people love to talk. 😊 I think that is just as true in medieval times as it is today.
THANK YOU JULIA for so generously donating to the channel. Yes, I always think about the numbers involved as well and how unlikely it is that something like this could ever have been kept secret. As you note, people don't change that much and large groups of people couldn't keep a secret like the Princes escaping and leading armies today either.
As soon as I saw Philippa Langley’s name I rolled my eyes 🙄
What a satisfyingly in-depth episode. Your knowledegable, objective (imo), down-to-earth analysis makes sense to me. It's tough enough putting together the shorter episodes; thank you for going those added miles to give us this.
I always felt bad for Elizabeth Woodville as a mother for failing to protect her two boys. For not knowing what happened to them. If something like this happened to me, I think I would go insane with grief and guilt.
Elizabeth Woodville had to be made of pure steel to keep it together.
What would you expect her to have done? She was not in a position to save them; Richard had the upper hand. It is amazing what she endured, but she did not have to feel guilty in addition.
Maybe she shouldn’t have had her brothers try to stage a coup? Her husband, the King, the children’s father, made HIS wishes clear. Maybe they should have just done that? Imo, would have ended up at lot better.
Different times & different people react differently to different scenarios, I’m finding myself using the words different/differently a lot 😂
she allowed her daughters to go into Richard"s court to find husbands. Very strange
I’m so pleased to see you made this video. I absolutely agree with you. Some people are saying that the history books need to be rewritten. But I really don’t see any new information in the documentary. It simply confirms what we already know, there were two people claiming to be the boys. We know that, the history is already written. Unless something is unearthed that proves they were the princes we are none the wiser.
There was a battle that took place where a 16 year old king was killed and an invoice backing that it's Edward through buying materials for the battle paid for by his aunt.
There's also a history written by a boy aged 14 who went to the same parliament to stir a battle for England.
Gracious but thorough, and a master class in critical thinking, research, and the evaluation of sources and evidence. I wish all the history that reaches a popular audience was subject to this kind of peer review, and on an equal time basis. That'd make a nice second channel for HC! (Our American 'History' Channel, which positively and definitively identifies a different Jack the Ripper, a different D.B. Cooper, and a different Zodiac killer every week, shudders at the prospect!)
Thanks Joe. I hope it was gracious. I tried to stay calm and polite as I didn't want to offend the participants any more than is unavoidable, given that I'm disagreeing with their conclusions.
The History Channel is downright embarrassing.
I’m no expert historian by any means, but I’m a staunch believer in common sense. Until strong real proof, I believe the poor boys died in the Tower and their uncle ordered it.
All the strong real proof has been destroyed by Henry VII.
I love little sly comments you add in between your points XD They always get a hearty chuckle out of me in between what can be a lot of information to me sometimes
"We're talking about a pan not a bucket" (this is from another video)
"Unless it's coming from Dominic Mancini I guess"
Ah, yes, I remember the 'pan not a bucket' comment (warming pan theory). I just couldn't resist the Mancini one in this. The double standard was so blatant to me.
Of all the documentaries I've seen about this subject i have yet to hear anything about any searches that were conducted for the 2 boys. If my nephews were kidnapped from my home when I was supposed to be keeping them safe I'd move heaven and earth trying to find them. I've never heard this mentioned. It's like they shrugged, said "Oh, well" and went about their lives.
To make it worse, uncle/nephew relationships were much more important than they even are today. It was normal for the future kings to practically be raised by their uncles. That's part of what made the whole thing so awful even for the time
They discuss searches in this documentary. Not by Richard though as he knew where they were.
I did go out and watch the documentary (albeit in bits so my blood pressure could handle it lol) and I can't believe this was allowed to air with holes in the logic big enough to drive the Flying Scotsman through. They actively refer to Richard escaping the Tower as him being "rescued" but from their logic what was he being rescued from? The only half way decent answer I could come up with was he was being "rescued" because he was forcibly taken from his mother thus kidnapped but then why not just put him back in sanctuary with her? Judge Rinder points out the obvious question: why were they being held in the Tower in the first place if they weren't a threat to Richard which is never given a satisfactory answer.
I know. The plot holes were insane. The documents they found were interesting enough in their own right, as evidence of the Perkin Warbeck fraud, but other than the 1487 receipt, none of them had any demonstrable link to the real Princes and even that receipt can be explained in other ways.
@@HistoryCalling Like, the scribe who wrote that receipt probably didn;t know one way or the other if the person the pikemen were being sent to aid was actually one of the Princes. He likely got told "Emperor Maximillian is sending pikemen to Edward IV's son. Write that up in the accounts would you?" and that's what he wrote down. No conspiracy necessary.
Excellent and insightful video. I agree with your assessment of the documentary. I am the 13th great grandson of Sir Thomas More, so I am interested in all things Tudor. Please Test the remains in Westminster Abbey King Charles III...
‘Unless it’s coming from Dominic Mancini, I guess’
THE SHADE. I agree. She seems to see a source as authentic and reliable only if it agrees with her preconceived belief that Richard is a sweet little puppy dog of a man who never did wrong!
She's producing source material to counter an historic theory that has almost no source material. Rather than attacking her bias historians should be looking for data like she did, if they want to argue against her theories.
Thank you so much for making your conclusions fit the facts, as opposed to trying to make facts fit conclusions. It seems pretty obvious that the creators of this new doc have an agenda and anything that doesn't play to that gets ignored or twisted to fit what they WANT to be true. I saw the doc they made when Richard III was found years back and Phillipa Langley always seemed bias toward him for whatever reason- was even truly upset to find that he did indeed have scoliosis as opposed to it being a smear from his enemies. If you go into a subject with preconceived notions of what you want to be true and refuse to take anything to the contrary seriously, how can you hope to reach factual conclusions?
Yes, unfortunately I do find her to be much more emotionally invested in presenting R3 as the person she wants him to have been, rather than the person I think the evidence suggests he actually was. Still, she did an amazing job of pushing for the 2012 dig and fund raising for it and I don't think he would have been found if not for her, so she deserves her place in the history books for that and I wouldn't take that away from her.
@HistoryCalling I absolutely agree. She seems to be a genuine woman who truly believes in her opinions on this and she deserves a great deal of the credit for the discovery of his burial. Unfortunately, sometimes our beliefs, or opposition to what we dont want to accept, cloud our judgement. Every human being falls prey to these pitfalls sometimes.
That was my first thought as well. Going into research with as much of an agenda as she seems to have rarely makes for good scholarship in my experience.
To be entirely honest, when I saw Philippa Langley was involved in the documentary it put me off watching it. I will watch it because I’m interested, but I think where Langley is involved in anything referring to Richard III, neutrality goes out of the window. She did some amazing work to find the likely location of Richard III’s remains and I credit her for that, but even her approach to that search wasn’t neutral. I’ll never forget, the lady who was responsible for examining the bones explained that she was in the early days of her career. She basically said that if something went wrong with looking for the remains, if mistakes were made, it would ruin her credibility before she’d even begun, so what did Langley want to do when the remains were boxed up? She wanted to drape a flag over them, way before they had been proven to be Richard’s. Then there was the way she went to pieces when the sort of injuries the bones were subjected to were being explained. Yes, it was awful and gruesome, but I don’t think there was any need for her to storm out of the room in the way she did. She just came across as a Richard III groupie for want of a better way to put it. There was no objectivity, no neutrality. She just seemed to want Richard III portrayed as a saint who wouldn’t have hurt a fly, let alone two children, and he’d been murdered by that awful Henry Tudor for no reason because Richard was such a nice man really. It all came across as slightly ridiculous.
I always thought her whole thing during that was weird, especially when she started to cry. I mean, lady, you know the time period was violent
The way she acted when they told her about Richard III actually having scoliosis was off putting too.
Excellent assessment of Langley's documentary. I found myself laughing at some of her statements, particularly her saying this was an objective & unbiased inquiry, then she went on to state she couldn't properly assess a document because she was biased. I also have questions about the receipt. I'm not doubting the authenticity of age but I've never seen such a detailed receipt with a drawn-out explication. To be fair, I'm not overly familiar woth those types of documents as I have not had to work with many.
Again, excellent breakdown. You hit all of the major points that I thought while watching & brought up other fantastic points.
I’ve just finished reading Philipa Langley’s book The Princes in the Tower. This is very timely.
Maybe Richard didn't know what happened?
If he had the bodies, he could give a big public funeral and display of grief while framing someone (as with Thomas a Becket). If he was sure they were dead, this could even be done with substitute bodies a couple of years later.
But if he declared them dead and they reappeared, still young enough to be widely recognized, he would appear incompetent as well as a usurper. His silence to me implies uncertainty, more than guilt.
Oh, thank you for this HC! I watched the documentary and got more and more frustrated as it went on. Langley's ability to see exactly what she wants knows no bounds so your thorough de-bunking of most of her conclusions was much needed. I've always wondered why Margaret didn't get behind John DeLa Pole, her nephew and Richard's heir, following the death of his own son. As you say, Margaret had never met the 2 princes so supporting a dubious imposter rather than the known De La Pole never makes sense to me.
Why would she support John de la Pole when there was Edward V there?
I've been waiting for you and other reputable evidence-based historians on TH-cam to post exactly this kind of video. Thank you for so thoroughly going through the evidence.
Amazing video, as always. Just a few points/questions:
1. What language is the inscription in, on the monument that houses the bones of the supposed princes in the tower?
2. Whose epitaph (the lady resting on the pillow) is seen on the right of this monument?
3. Are there bones also not interred with those of Edward the 4th and Elizabeth Woodville that could be the boys?
4. Richard the 3rd deligitimatised his nephews. Would it matter with these pretenders?
5. I believe that Henry the 7th was a wise king, not as blood-thirsty as his son or granddaughters.
6. I also believe that the boys were unfortunately killed. Richard the 3rd had made too many obvious moves to ensure his spot on the throne. Very chess-like.
7. Richard the 3rd named his successor, but this successor did not include the princes in the tower. He was either playing the game that these boys were illegitimate, or he knew that they were dead.
8. Wouldn't it be great if King Charles the 3rd, allowed those two sets of bones to be DNA tested?
The children of Edward IV were indeed declared illegitimate, and so they were no threat to Richard and there was no reason to murder them, they could have been held in the Tower, exiled, or even be allowed to live their lives in freedom as their sisters were. But Henry VII reversed that decision and had Edward IV’s children declared legitimate again in order to marry Elizabeth of York. That action made the Princes a threat not only to Henry VII, but to his heirs. That’s why the pretenders, if that’s what they were, were a threat to Henry.
@@ffotograffyddjust because Richard had them declared illegitimate doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a threat. As long as they were alive there would always be a danger of either boy being used by Richard’s enemies to overthrow him.
@@weezie422 Not when they had a more credible adult opponent to support called Henry Tudor.
I’m glad you posted your own research after the documentary. It left me with more questions than answers. I thought they were swayed by their own bias, not facts. I hope King Charles gives permission to have the bones tested by a forensic anthropologist. I heard he was open to the idea. Perhaps the team that worked on Richard the third should do it. I hope there’s plenty of tooth pulp for a DNA test. Science is not biased. Thank you for the history lesson. Have a great weekend.
Thanks for the thorough and reasoned counterpoint to the documentary. (And in record time... full marks!)
As others have stated, I admire Philippa Langley's determination to find Richard. That being said, I find the fangirl devotion makes me hugely skeptical of any of her conclusions. (That receipt is a very cool find, though.)
The sequence of events and the subsequent actions of Richard III, Henry VII, Elizabeth Woodville, and Elizabeth of York (and others) just don't back up the "he didn't have them killed" theorists.
I too wish the King would authorize the DNA testing. It may not provide a definitive answer, but it's certainly worth investigating.
Excellently researched and presented. I just saw the documentary on Thursday night and still wasn't convinced that this narrative had any serious weight. In fact, it left me with two questions: 1) Why did the narrative of Edward V just come to such an abrupt end at Stoke? Surely there would be some documented evidence that he was killed in the battle or at least went missing. 2) Was "Richard" ever presented to Elizabeth of York for identification? If so, I can imagine there certainly would have been some written chronicle of the meeting, but there was none. There's a wonderful miniseries from the early 70s called "the Shadow of the Tower" which follows the rule of Henry VII from his victory at Bosworth until his death. While, clearly, I don't rely on this as fact, the dramatizations of the two pretenders are done very well. I'm a huge Tudor history nerd, and Philippa Langley's documentary was entertaining and thought-provoking.
Your command of a large, complex cast of players is masterful, as is your compelling narrative. Bravissimo et merci beaucoup.
When it comes to these cold case history mysteries, the simplest most direct conclusion is by and large the truth. In the case of the Romanov murders, the world speculated for decades with outlandish theories of hope and survival (including a convincing imposter) only to learn in the end that all seven family members were in fact brutally murdered and hastily buried in a remote location just as the Bolsheviks said. We found that smoking gun and hopefully, one day we'll have the same opportunity in this case as well. Time and again, this kind of evidence has proven out more than any wild theory has. There is a reason cops today usually suspect the closest relative of murdered children and spouses first (i.e. Laci Peterson, Caylee Anthony, Jonbenet Ramsey, etc) if there's no other clear culprit or motive. The wild conspiracy theories make for great storytelling and it's always bittersweet to think maybe, just maybe, they escaped and their caretaker wasn't truly as evil as all that. But as we've seen from the other historical cold cases I mention here, people in desperate times are capable of the most bald faced lies and deceptions in order to save their own hides. In the end, the truth is often far less dramatic and more than likely heartbreakingly tragic. The evidence for motive and opportunity still falls in the lap of Richard III and it would take far more convincing evidence to prove otherwise to me. Excellent work debunking the recent hullabaloo over this! Thank you for continuing to offer well researched and entertaining content.
In fact, because the 2 youngest Romanians were discovered in a different place than the rest of the family, it gives a possible reason for those stories. Obviously none of them survived, but looks like the youngest 2 survived longer than the rest of the family, which would fuel those rumors.
Perhaps one day, Charles III will allow DNA testing on the bodies that were found under the staircase. After all, his father donated a sample of his DNA to confirm the identities of the Imperial Romanov family
Seems strange why they refused unless because its not possible and will show that our current royalty are fakes and not true heirs to the throne.
Still won’t solve anything.🤷♀️ The survival theory is just silly. They died there in the tower. It’s them.
Thank you! I'm going with Occam's razor. The most simple and likely explanation is that the two boys were killed at the hand of their politically ambitious and ruthless uncle. Sure, he isn't the caricature of Shakespeare but I don't quite understand why there is such a strong desire to rectify KR3's reputation. I think the evidence shows that he was a flawed and narcisstic king of his time and probably quite capable of executing his rivals.
Fair enough but the simple theory is based on almost no evidence versus evidence just unearthed here. We should go with the evidence.
I'm glad you mentioned Elizabeth of York because she wasn't mentioned in the documentary (and I kept waiting for them to do so). She surely would have been able to identify her kid brother. Of course, this would have put her in a very difficult position......identify him as the real Richard and she puts the throne of her husband and her son at risk, falsely identifying him as an imposter has the same effect. Since he was allowed to live, I have to assume he wasn't Richard and Elizabeth told Henry so.
I enjoy your videos, they are well thought out and researched, thank you. I find that Philippa tends to overly romanticize Richard III and underplay the involvement he had in the disappearance of his nephews that he had care,custody and control over.
I agree with you 100%. And let me add one more thing: If Henry VII would have killed the boys I bet you his relationship with his wife would have not been so lovingly. They both loved each other and she would have probably not been happy by having her brothers killed , or one around and then killed. There seemed to be a deep connection between them, so murdering her brothers, even for the sake of her own kids, would have not gown down well. We need the DNA testing to know if those are the princes or not.
Excellent point..commonsense assessment. For some reason people to day have an odd Idea of peoples humanity in the past…some had common sense too. Of course you mean Henry 7th.
If Henry VII had the princes killed, I would bet he made sure his wife never knew about it. I can't imagine him telling her, or allowing her to be told, for the reasons you've suggested.
@@edithengel2284 However he did not...so it's all good.
@@perniciouspete4986 lol you are right instead of 7 I made him 8 . Will correct it. ThanksI did not noticed it lol 😂 😂
@@GRMLS5 lol yes I did , >I am sorry for the mess up. I corrected it
"The show is presented by Philippa Langley" - sigh. The discovery of Richard III has both weakened and strengthen her stature: finding him (well done), and then being wrong about his back. ("Oh NO!" as she famously exclaimed upon seeing the spine for the first time.) I remember the halcyon days when Ricardists used to claim his back was totally normal. Anyway, the bottom line is, no one else would have brought forth something like this as "evidence", and the network went along with it because she did find the famous tyrant in the parking lot, so she must have credibility. Well, I think she has none here, and there's certainly no evidence for the fanciful narratives of pen-pal children writing from jail, shaved heads, traveling all over Europe, blah blah. All this reminds me of "NEW EVIDENCE" surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy which conveniently pops up every November of a major anniversary ending in the number "0". DNA of the bones in that coffin is the only thing that's going to solve this, if even then. And by the way: the dismissal of Mancini, the only writer of the exact contemporaneous period, is completely unprofessional, and renders this whole thing null, imo. Another great conspiracist debunk by HC.
Considering the way the bones were treated after they were disinterred, it's doubtful that anything useful could be retrieved. They were thrown on a rubbish heap, then retrieved, and handled by any number of people. They were corrupted before being reinterred, and then in the 1930s, handled again.
Thank you for another great video!
In the United States, this documentary was presented and (possibly) re-edited as a part of the PBS series "Secrets of the Dead", which is how I watched it. I found the presentation of the information to be sensationalist, the evidence cherry picked as you said, and at least in this version of the documentary there was barely a single mention of a pretender, either Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck, in the entire program. The idea that any of those documents could possible refer to anyone other than one or both of the Princes of the Tower was not mentioned more than once, either. I also suspect, given your review, that the American version must have cut out parts of certain interviews present in the UK version, as some of what interview content you mentioned wasn't familiar to me
Even if we ever do get DNA, I question whether that will fully silence the theorists out there. From my view, unfortunately, so long as there is money to be made on a sensationalist view of history, someone out there will try to make it.
I wonder why PBS was allowed part of it? That's interesting. Maybe Channel 4 has some sort of deal with them? I don't know. Yes, I agree that for some people no amount of evidence will be enough, but for most, if the bones in the Tower turned out to be the boys, that would be good enough for them.
@@HistoryCalling PBS does do (near) simultaneous showings now and then. Certainly we've had a few really popular dramas that did. According to the Almighty Wikipedia, SotD also began as a documentary series on your Channel 4; I guess that'd explain why they still share some of the docs
Finding King Richard in that parking lot and giving him a proper burial was a big thing. Now we also have DNA that can be used to check the DNA of the kids they found in the tower. That said.. it became a obsession and it is a way of making money out of this story. That is my take on it. There is NOTHING that bring anything new to the story. Unless you really want HenryVII to be the killer and white wash the character of King Richard. And that they are doing. That is my opinion on this situation. Finding the skeleton of King Richard does not make you Sherlock Holmes and it doesn`t got anything to do with " knowing " what happened to the kids, beside what is already out.
@@HistoryCalling As another commenter has said I think they are a regular distributor of BBC and Channel 4 content. They're our government-funded channel, so in the past they have been pretty good about presenting historical content as is, but it seems like even they have fallen prey in the last several years to the desire here for everything to be dramatic. Their version of the documentary also had an American narrator edited into many scenes, presumably to give additional context to watchers who aren't familiar with the history.
@@AxeMichithey are, a lot of bbc shows would only air on PBS state-side. Like call the midwives and if I remember correctly downton abbey too
You've presented yet another wonderful analysis proving that one must always take materials intended for a general audience with a grain of salt. Well done! Another TH-cam channel that deals with history posted an excited short summary, and I was immediately skeptical (I haven't seen the documentary). You coalesced my unease, and I shared a link to this video on their channel.
Think this historian needs to read Langley's book on the Princes. I've read it and all her questions are answered. Might make her rethink a bit about what she states here.
I find it hard to believe that Richard kept the 2 biggest threats to his claim secretly alive and well - as you say yourself at that time Richard had zero problem eliminating any threat or rival - I think I've said before that Shakespeare had Richard figured out - and he was no big fan of the Tudors actually
I know. What's the point in getting them into the Tower, just to release them again almost immediately?
@@HistoryCalling - these Richardists are always grasping at straws - lol at them - 🛸✨
@@FandersonUfoHenry 7th ( 1st Tudor King ) had a dodgy claim to the throne based on his ancestor marrying a dowager Queen . But then Richard 3rd wasn’t exactly Mr goody two shoe either . He wasn’t even the “ Spare “ but when his elder brother and King asked him to look after his boys if something happened to him he didn’t think on Uncle Richard would want the top job for himself.
@@karensimpson4869 - Richard became vicious and ruthless as King - he lost support quickly especially on Bosworth field
@@FandersonUfo he surely did
On the subject of Lady Jane Grey's execution: You're defining "child" with a modern definition. Today, a 16-year-old would be considered a child. In Medieval times, however, a 16-year-old was not a child. By the time a female was 16, she was very often married and had had one or more children. 16 was an adult in their eyes. That's not to say that they wouldn't have killed children, but Queen Mary I did not consider Lady Jane a child, nor did the public.
Exactly what I came to the comments to say. Lady Jane Grey was a married woman, not a child by contemporary consideration.
The concept of childhood and what age defined someone to still be a child in a society only started to be discussed in the 19th-20th century. People need to see the whole concept and how society changed through centuries
Thank you for another fascinating video, HC. I listen to your wars of the roses play list over and over and I think I am finally starting to be able to keep up! I found the first document (the pike account list) to be very compelling to think about. It would be so preferable to think the “princes” survived, but until we get more solid evidence it just doesn’t make sense. Also, Margaret of Burgundy is an intriguing woman I would like to learn more about.
*I wasn't expecting much from the documentary, but it was even worse! That woman managed to drag a whole bunch of people into her delirium. Embarrassing!*
To be fair, Richard III has a rather large and passionate fan club. She just picked the people she knew would agree with her assessment
What like her so called delusional delirium finding Richard 111 ???
@@EM-lz9kg To be fair, that was a really lucky guess. And as others have pointed out, some of her conduct even during that was less than professional. Like when she started crying just because it was discovered that his spine was very deformed.
I haven't watched the new documentary yet, but I personally believe, that since Richard, Duke of Gloucester felt it was necessary to murder Anthony Woodville, William Hastings, and Richard Grey, once he seized control of King Edward V, it shows just how far Richard was willing to go, in order to usurp the throne from the young King, and that included hiding them away, and eventually having them murdered, so he could ascend the throne of England unchallenged. He paved the way for himself to become King, by getting rid of everyone he believed was a threat to his plans. He had the motive and the means, because he was an evil, power-hungry snake.
I doubt he'd be stupid enough to disappear them though.
He came up with at least vaguely legitimate reasons to dispose of any rivals in a way that didn't make him look illegitimate as king.
His plan was most likely to keep the boys locked up until they were old enough to be "discovered plotting his overthrow"
Great video! I really enjoyed your forensic breakdown of the ideas put forward.
My first thought watching the doc was ‘but wouldn’t Elizabeth of York recognise her brother?’ This conveniently wasn’t thought about by Ms Langley who seemed to me to be so convinced of her theory that both brothers survived that she skewed the ‘evidence’ to prove herself right. Still it’s an intriguing subject and perhaps will prompt a DNA test on the bones?
Welshcat,actually she did think of that ,Elizabeth of York was forbidden to see him ,
Back in the 1990s I was quite the Ricardian. Bu that view crumbled when i discovered that his seizure of the throne split the Yorkists driving Elizabeth Woodville to plot with Margaret Beaufort to install their children, married, as the first Tudor monarchs
Richard III's actions, as you reminded me, are not those of a loyal and protective uncle, and I now definitely think he did murder the boys.
He might have been a loyal lieutenant but he has a Big Brother controlling him, and when Edward IV was dead it seems to me Richard simply could not resist the temptation to seize the throne and murder all those who got in his way. not just the boys but Rivers and Hastings.
I don't think my view is necessarily proven but i think the burden of proof lies with those who assert otherwise and they have not succeeded in this
thank you for this excellent video, it shows history done properly such as i never had the training nor, more importantly, the patience to ever do myself
Thank you so much for this! I just watched the Nova presentation and some of the points you raise are ones I questioned myself.
Thanks Catherine. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
William Shakespeare relied on Queen Elizabeth. She was a royal patron of the arts. We know that she attended several of his shows; there’s even stories that she requested certain characters to make appearances (she seems to have been a Falstaff fan). If the Queen liked a play, Shakespeare could be certain that others would. Her influence was invaluable. So the Bard had a vested interest in keeping her happy. Thus, he wrote Richard III for the Tudors. It’s no wonder, then, that he made Richard into such a villain. By doing so, he turned Henry VII- and, by extension, Elizabeth- into a national hero, capable of defeating archetypal e
*All these fools saying "Just DNA test the remains!" obviously haven't thought one bit about the consequences. Chances are high for the skeletons not belonging to the princes (remember that plenty of bodies have been buried in and around the Tower, including children's). Once DNA proves that the bones don't belong to the princes, then what? What should be done with the bones? What should be done with the Westminster Abbey monument? And how many more royal remains would be expected to be tested to prove whatever other theories some people might have about other mysteries?*
*The late Queen was wiser than most of us.*
What I find most unconvincing about the documentary is that all the evidence presented for the Princes' survival ultimately has a specific motive - to exonerate Richard. It's not just examining the possibility that the Princes escaped or survived, but rather specifically trying to prove a narrative where Richard is innocent. It's ultimately about Richard, not about the Princes.
🎯
🎯
Yeah, almost like the documentary was paid for and created by a propaganda group made up of rabid Richard fans
Richard, might possibly, have been smuggled out of sanctuary by their mother, but Edward is a much less likely "survivor." I tend to lean into the Richard III had botg boys killed. Its tempting to believe that somehow, someway, they escaped. But i think that is largely due to just how sad their story is. Along with poor Theodore Plantagenet 😢
Another possible motivation Margaret of Burgundy to support boys claiming to be her nephews is that it would exonerate her brother of his imfamous crime, which would have a big impact on her family's reputation.
I was in London and visited the Tower just a couple days after the documentary aired. It was so fascinating to see the real place. I wish that the remains would be DNA tested for some clarity
Oh wow. I had no idea you were gonna do a review of this. I shall watch with piqued enthusiasm. 😃😂
Me neither until last Saturday. I hadn't really noticed that it was coming out. Cue and exceptionally busy week for me in order to get it ready in time.
There is a Zeeland in The Netherlands, it borders Belgium. It has a strong maritime history and is on the river Schelde an incredibly important waterway. It is also very close to Sluis, or Sluys, somewhere that often is mentioned in relation to Margaret of Burgundy.
Of course, that is the correct Zeeland. The video got it wrong putting it in Denmark.
Nice 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Great research as always. I really do t know why Richard III would have ever let them live, since they would usurp his right to the throne.
I love your systematic analyses of facts. Brilliant.
You are so thorough and knowledgeable - a pleasure to listen
“I find this to be a case of seeing what you want to see.” That quote quite neatly sums it all up: this is yet another case of Langley cherry-picking facts to suit her pro-Ricardian bias.
She is actually a talented writer of historical fiction-even when said fiction is a bit far-fetched-but that bias shines through in all of her work. When it is relegated to the world of historical fiction, those more far-fetched ideas are perfectly fine, in order to make the work more entertaining, as that is the ultimate goal of historical fiction: to entertain the reader. It’s when she tries to mold actual history to fit her ideas that it becomes a problem. The historian’s work is there to educate and to preserve knowledge, not purely to entertain. Facts matter more, and the methods of finding and compiling those facts are far more stringent, and rightfully so. Bias will of course still happen-we are all only human, after all-but an historian must work to put those biases aside; Langley consistently does the opposite.
I also find this latest theory of hers to be somewhat grasping at straws. Her bias demands she find a way to absolve Richard of this most heinous crime, and she has certainly gone to great lengths to try to accomplish that. She first tried the idea that Richard had no idea what had happened to the boys, but that naturally meant someone else must be the culprit, so she tried to make Lady Margaret Beaufort that culprit. In doing so, she disregarded the well-established details of Margaret’s life in order to cast her as the killer. When people found that hard to swallow, Queen Anne Neville was put forth as a possible candidate, most notably in the televised version of “The White Queen,” which made it appear as if both women could possibly have been guilty, despite a total lack of evidence. And now, she is grasping at yet another way to exonerate Richard III: by claiming the boys were not murdered at all, by Richard or anyone else. And with all such bias-based words, the contradictions and omissions are staggering.
Here are the facts we know to be true and accurate: Richard had both boys put in the Tower of London with painfully spurious justifications. He then set out to destroy their claims to the throne and usurp the crown, successfully. Shortly after a botched attempt to free the boys, Richard dismissed their servants and stopped paying for their upkeep. The boys then simply vanished. Richard did not make any attempt to investigate their disappearance, which he almost certainly would have done had he thought anyone else was behind the disappearance, if for no other reason than to identify and remove any threats to his rule…which is the sort of thing Richard was ruthlessly carrying out at that time. It’s why few people demanded Richard produce the boys or account for their whereabouts: he had proven himself capable and more than willing to eliminate anyone in his way, even former allies. And he had complete control over the Tower, and had used that castle to remove his perceived enemies in at least one well-documented case. But most damning of all evidence: the person who benefited most from the boys’ deaths was Richard III. It’s the conclusion most people believed at the time, even before the discovery of the skeletal remains, and it’s the conclusion that is still the most believable centuries later.
The truth is that unless some extraordinary evidence is discovered (such as a believable confession from whichever of Richard’s men actually carried out the killings) at this late date, we will never know how the boys actually died. Even King Charles III allows the skeletal remains to be disinterred from Westminster Abbey (something his mother was strongly against for these and all royal remains), and if those remains have any useable DNA that can be extracted from them, it would only solve one part of the mystery: their identity. It very likely will not tell us how they died, and it most definitely cannot tell us who ordered the killings and who carried out those orders. Despite that, I am still personally in favor of the exhumation (provided it would not permanently damage that beautiful urn by Sir Christopher Wren). It would at the very least put to an end theories like the one in that documentary, and perhaps allow the little King and the Prince his brother to finally rest in peace.
That…was more lengthy than I intended, and to anyone who actually read this far, I thank you for it.
Have to correct you. Phillipa Langley is the amateur historian. Philippa Gregory is the writer of historical quasi fiction. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.
I'm not sure Lady Jane Gray's situation shows the willingness to murder children.
While we would see her as a child now, at the time 16 was viewed as a young adult and she was a married woman. Also, her situation was very different and Mary I wanted to let her live. Circumstances required otherwise.
As always, I really enjoyed your post, thank you! ❤ "Breakneck speed" or not, your conclusions are sound and well thought out. I agree that all but one of the documents appear to be consistent with the Warbeck plot. That receipt is fascinating and deserves more attention. Being in Texas, I watched the PBS presentation and was a bit underwhelmed with what I saw. Perhaps they didn't want to confuse us so it was "dumbed down" a bit, as so many things are, for the US audience. 😊 I'll watch it again and stop and rewind as I go. I look forward to seeing your next video
As to midevil Catholics not killing children, King John had his nephew Arthur killed, there was much contemporary feeling he had killed Arthur himself. While Matt Lewis has a wonderful podcast, he is the first to admit he's a Ricardian, so I'm not surprised to see him take Richard's side.
For reasons you outlined here, I don't think they made much of a case in the documentary.
Er, Arthur wasn’t a child - he was adult enough to lead an army and among other feats besiege his own Granny, the still-formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine!
A better example might be the last McWilliam claimant to the throne of Scotland, a baby girl (name lost to history); King Alexander II put paid to her claim by having one of his supporters bash out her brains against the Mercat Cross in Forfar. Note that Alexander himself was only 17 at the time, having succeeded to the throne of Scotland a year before, and so was as much or as little a “child” as Arthur was!
This documentary has not been aired in Australia yet so I have not seen it. It will be shown tomorrow evening (Sunday 26 November) local time and has already sparked some interest due to heavy advertising. We were sceptical and watched your reaction with great interest.
Roll on the chance for us to see it tomorrow.
Well - I watched it! But not all of it because I got irritated with the poor science and interpretation of evidence.
It has taken me several days of consideration to work out my true opinions.
The worst piece of 'evidence' in my opinion is the free acceptance of what would be, in a legal scenario, hearsay evidence, namely the item from the Dutch archives. Not only is not a primary source it a translation of a secondary source lowering its credibility to zero. If there was independent evidence to support its contentions the it would have some credibility but with no provenance at all it cannot be considered.
That it should be accepted without question by a working barrister is amazing, by a judge is unbelievable!
It was at this point I lost my temper with the programme and switch it off. A pity really because I am familiar with Phillipa Langley's work and, usually, respect her.
This is a wonderful documentary. Thanks.
Very well thought out and presented 👏. I wish that John Everett Millais' painting of Edward 5th and Prince Richard was ditched though - maybe its just me but its awful!
I am going to read Langley's book before I decide how persuasive I feel the evidence is. I believe Matt Lewis' book, the Survival of the Princes in the Tower, is quite good and he seems to be less polarizing than Langley. Not sure why so many people dislike her but, by the same token why do so many people hate Richard III? I am tired of the assertion that DNA testing of the bones, in the urn, in Westminster Abbey will solve this whole mystery. They won't. All they MIGHT solve is whether the princes are the ones in the urn. Great video, as always, your conclusions are very thought provoking!
Langley deserves enormous praise for doggedly pursuing the recovery of Richard III's remains but the documents she presented are open to interpretation and do not substantially aid her hypothesis that his nephews survived his reign. Also, I dont think people "dislike" Langley as much as they are frustrated by her tendency to shoehorn-in data to fit her preset narrative.
If the contents of the urn were DNA tested and found to be the remains of the Princes we would have proof of the likelihood that Richard had them murdered. This being the root of Langley's theory l think it would go a long way to towards solving the mystery.
As I watched that show, I could not believe that she was trying to say these two pretenders to the throne were actually Edward and Richard. I feel like I have heard all this before. Of course, the new documents speak of them as sons of Edward IV either because the key players believed them to be the real people or because they chose to believe it. Either way, there was little new in this documentary. An archaeologist or historian who goes looking with a preconceived idea will usually find exactly what they are looking for, whether it is there or not. Ms Langley will choose to believe her results because she wants to.
Excellent video! Your arguments are quite convincing. Thanks so much
Found this video admirable. Just a quick note: I am not sure if it's been already commented upon before in the comments, but are you confident that the 'Zealand' referred to is the Danish Zealand, and not the Dutch Zeeland? The latter would seem to be a more appropriate staging place for an invasion of England (in terms of geographic proximity).
I think they never left the Tower , my husband thinks one at least survived so our friendly debate continues xxx
Ah, well. Now each of you has a new TV/TH-cam documentary to support your view and add to the debate :-)
It is hard for us to understand how brutal family members were with each other. Ms Langley does not think that Richard III was capable of murder, he may not have by his own hand by has had Rivers and his other siblings put to death, the same with Lord Hastings. His older brother George was put to death by their other brother King Edward IV by being drowned in a vat of sweet wine. To get to the throne and keep it, I have no doubt he was capable of having his nephews killed. They disappeared before the Battle of Bosworth when Henry VII came to the throne, so by a balance of probabilities it is likely to be Richard III.
Hi HC, I didn’t see the documentary and by the sound of it I needn’t search it out. You made brilliant counter arguments to all the points made.
Your presentation was a great watch so thanks for all your hard work. 👍🏻
Thanks James. I mean it's always worth a look just to see for yourself (I don't want to encourage people to just take my view on things, but always to do their own research), but yeah, I'd be surprised if you were heavily swayed by it.
I love Philippa Langley's enthusiasm and I enjoyed her documentary, it revisited various details and situations from the time. However, all that is known is that those poor boys vanished whilst under the 'protection' of their Uncle Richard of York. He was, shortly after their incarceration, proclaimed King and he had a living son and heir of his own at this point. A veil is drawn over the fate of the princes but understandably people were suspicious. I am a real history buff and I do find Richard a compelling character but I have no emotional investment in this. I would very much love to know what really happened. This story has left a scar on English history. Many thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it.