@@saoirsedonnelly2352 oh, depends, on the parents genes and the race, too. My friend's son, back when he barely reached 12, was tall enough, with enough body mass and with an already showing facial hair (upper lip first), to EASILY pass for a 16yo.... till he spoke, of course. 3😉 And another friend, but this time from Japan, looked like a 15, where she was, in fact, pass 25... I won't argue, however, with the fact that the actor was not chosen well.
@@saoirsedonnelly2352 Lie I have son he is 13 he looked like 25 that what people and my family said and I'm not mad at them because he looks like freaking 25
Renee, I would still advise u to look it up in encyclopedias. This was my first Dan Jones "documentary", and it will be my last. This has very little to do with known facts, almost all of it is pure fictional. I call it fictional, coz hes presenting it, as if it was truth, but it is not. This is his theory of what happened, and its very dishonest to cherrypick the few facts, that fit his desired conclusion, ignore all those that do not fit, and then invent an entire story and present it as historical fact. This is not history. This is fiction. If he was an honest presenter, he would lay out, what known facts there are, present the likely suspects (yes, there are others besides Richard), present the possible theories for each including all circumstantial evidence for AND against each theory, all the while ALWAYS clearly stating what is proven historical fact (which is very little), what is extrapolation, what is speculation, and what is pure guesswork/his opinion. He does none of that. Plz dont confuse this with actual history.
Even if you could convince me that he didn't have the boys killed, you cant convince me that he was doing any of this to honor his brothers wishes. He wanted power for himself and seemed to have no thought for what his brother would have wanted. I also think its crazy that we still call Elizabeth Woodville "power hungry" for wishing to see her family succeed and her distrust of Edwards brothers. I think she has every reason to distrust them based on their behavior and I think the Woodville family were naturally trying to protect themselves and their interests as all families would have in their position. Just my thoughts.
Basically the Woodvilles dared to rise above their station in the eyes of the courtiers. Elizabeth was a brave woman and she helped avenge the deaths of her sons in the end. The whole realm felt Richard had gone too far, which he did.
Basically, the one really at fault here is Edward IV. Richard will protect himself, the Woodvilles will protect themselves. But this conflict wouldn't have risen in the first place if both sides weren't placed in that fighting positions due to Edward's explosive loins.
Yeah I don't care for this whitewashing of Richard III that's been going on lately. Lots of apologizing going on. They gave him a very nice funeral when they found his bones a few years back, especially for a child murderer. I accept that things may not be as simple as they're made out to be. But there's no getting around him murdering those 2 kids so he could be king. His infamy is deserved.
George RR Martin based A Game Of Thrones on the Wars Of The Roses and you can see the similarities (except the dragons & white walkers). Where in the WOTR you had the “Kingmaker” and in GOT you had the “Kingslayer”
@@JTuniversenet It's strange that people seem to think that GOT is the only series to show medieval life. There have been plenty before that showed how brutal the past was.
This is my new favorite channel. It isn't the same old story regurgitated with new narration. The story, narration, reenactments, etc. are a step above all others. I can't help but binge on all these videos since finding them 😁❤
Most of the Plantagenets were blonde & hair's a bit short for the time.I am a Ricardian but always wondered why he killed Hastings,Vaughn & Earl Rivers.The latter only carrying out his sister's command.Read his poetry if u can.He was a very gifted man.
It amazing to think if the 2 prince's weren't killed it would have changed history dramatically, they be no Henry Vll and they would be no protestants no bloody mary and no burning of protestants ....
If the princes weren't killed Richard wouldn't have been King, but Henry Tudor and Margaret (Beaufort?) and all the nobility that still resented that the crown passing to the house of York would still have been around so there is no guarantee that Henry Tudor wouldn't have made a bid for the crown.
Man kills his nephew, to ensure his brother's will is carried out, following his death. He just forgot that one of those orders included his nephew, becoming the new ruler... whoops. The devil's in the details, & Richard clearly wasn't a stickler for details 😬
@@sese6227Richard was in a tough position, if he doesn’t seize power then his enemies can eventually influence that boy king to have Richard stripped of power or maybe even executed.
In 1674, two skeletons were discovered under the stairs in the tower and reburied in Westminster Abbey. John Ashdown-Hill, a 56-yearold PhD student at Essex University, hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair believed to belong to the boys' niece, Mary Tudor, could reveal the answer.....I hope this is the boys.
@@GuilhermeSilva-lt6rw Im not sure why she would deny such a facinsting discovery. Disrespectful to the remains of potential royals of england if found to be true. But if to be true, they deserve a proper burial. And pushes the anti york propaganda which furthers her claim of ancestral right. Not that it matters now, its a one of those great mysteries of history
Unknown why would she refuse? She is 94 years old. Why would it matter several hundred years later other than to identify them and give them a proper burial. A mystery solved as to what happened to these kids.
GoT is heavily based on the Wars of the Roses, with a little of the Heptarchy sprinkled in. GRRM's fantasies are pretty much ripoffs of actual English history. The new House of the Dragon series appears to be based on the Anarchy. Simply proving that fact is far crazier than fiction.
Absolutely !!! I get so annoyed at the historical misleading of events in the TV series ! people think they know history watching them when history is fascinating just as it happened. Dan Jones knows how to tell history !!
Well, 500 years worth of speculation on these "murders in the Tower" that began with a gossip surge after the kids were removed from the premises to prevent further kidnapping attempts was quite a piece of fiction to begin it all with.
Pretty much. Another constant....all hell breaks loose, when someone believes their cushy lifestyle is about to be infringed upon, by a new ruler. The amount of insanity & destruction, that ensues because of greed, is astounding.
In 2021, “Treason!” is basically, “Racist” or “Nazi”! It’s bollucks, but it’s all cowards have when they can’t call you anything real to get their way.
3 years and I still come back to these, I’m not even English or into UK history stuff, I just find this to be really cleanly produced and well informed, thank you!!
Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. I disagree heavily that Lady Margaret Beaufort or Henry Tudor himself had any involvement in their disappearance, and there are problems with claiming they did. 1. Richard had the most to gain via the boys disappearance. What often gets overlooked is that he had them declared illegitimate due to their mother's (Elizabeth Woodville's) lower nobility background. This was a move that was controversial even back then and could've easily been challenged by even other yorkists, who may attempt to place one of the boys on the throne instead of him. So the princes just disappear right after he declared them illegitimate so he was less likely to be challenged on that move? Seems very convenient for Richard. Leaving the boys alive after having declared them illegitimate was a huge risk. 2. Henry Tudor wasn't even in England at the time of the disappearance, and they were already missing for a good two years before Henry even set foot back in the country. As for Margaret Beaufort, her husband Lord Stanley, didn't become constable of London, and therefore in charge of the tower, until well and after the boys went missing. Plus, it's a bit of stretch to say that Margaret convinced whoever may carried it out for her, that this would hopefully in the off chance, might backfire on Richard which they had no way of knowing it would, and then gamble everything on the yorkists splitting because of it, and then again gambling everything on Henry winning against Richard. How would they even know Henry would beat Richard? It would've been all for nothing if he didn't. Claiming she was involved relies on her either knowing or guessing everything that did happen would happen.
The boys were declared bastards by parliament because a bishop came forward and confessed he had first person knowledge of Edwards pre-construction of marriage with another woman not his wife. Thus all of Edwards children with Elizabeth Woodville were bastardized and could not legally inherit the throne. Richard naturally inherited the Kingship. He lost his crown due to betrayal by the Stanley's at Bosworth field.
Richard gained nothing from the boys disappearance. We know they were alive after Richard’s coronation. There was never a rebellion in support of them. If Richard had them killed, the only possible benefit to him would have been if all of England knew they were dead.
@@ellenyoung8283 There was no solid evidence of that, so it could have easily overturned. And there was an attempt to rescue the boys and restore Edward V to the throne. As long as they were alive, they were a threat to Richard.
He could have been a good uncle and protector of the realm and lived a long a prosperous life being the king's regent. Greed brought him and his whole family down.
Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis is the first and only living direct descendant of Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford. Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford was the younger brother of King Edward IV. Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis's older sister Katelyn's father, Neil Michael Davis did NOT father redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis but Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford did despite being over 500 years old. 🎭🩰🎨th-cam.com/video/6-HrQW3uapg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/2lxZaTnQbwE/w-d-xo.html
Good point, but also imagine having a claim to the throne and risking your life to defeat scottish rebels for your brother and then having to hand over the crown to his spoiled 12 year old son… you can almost understand richards motives when trying to put yourself in his shoes
Not greed, but self preservation. Richard didn't want Edward and the Woodvilles to come after him and his son. He needed the power of the King to protect himself. The circumstance forced his hand.
ive seen this many times in royal documentaries they do this because these documentaries has low budgets and they use drama uni students to help them out. but its very rare that they use actual kids coz it might be too young to understand the story or too much for them at a young age. and it always depends on if the parents of the actors agrees with BBC to have their child acting out such a violent story.
@@LordCarolusMagnus There is a chance that it would have played out differently. The Woodvilles, Buckingham and Rivers would have definitely sided with Edward, and that arguably would have convinced Stanley to join them instead. Not to mention that Henry's claim to the throne was much weaker than Edward's, and without the hatred against Richard present he probably would have never been able to rally enough men to his cause.
@@theeclectic6206 Maybe instead of Elizabeth, there would have been another great queen, who knows... And Spanish Armada... I'm pretty sure that it wouldnt have even happened, so there would have been no need to defeat it.
@@locassen please don't forget that Lord Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, Henry Vll's mother, who no doubt influenced his decision to withdraw his support from Richard at Bosworth.
@@freebird1ification he rebelled in 1483. Bad weather and bad luck, plus Buckingham was not a good lord to his people, so they sold him to Richard. Buckingham's son and heir would also be beheaded in the course of time, by Henry the Eighth.
It is sad for Edward and his brother. They were only kids and they met their end. People who visit the place where the princes were murdered, that it's haunted because they hear voices and see ghosts of 2 boys playing.
Olivia_ Playz2003 I have been to the Tower of London many times, including the spot where the boys were found, and I can tell you that nothing like that happens. No ghosts, or voices. Any claims other than that are obviously from people smoking a bit too much of the green stuff, or those that already hear “voices.”
If Richard was responsible for the boys, supposedly fond of them, and he was already crowned king by then and so in theory their threat of inheritance to him had passed, why did he not move heaven and earth to find out what happened to them
Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was undoubtedly bigamous and so his children were illegitimate. Added to that Edward himself was illegitimate (he was born in Calais rather more than ten months after Cicely, Duchess of York had last seen Richard, Duke of York and one of the archers of the garrison was named as his Godfather on his baptismal record, meaning he was almost certainly Edward's father, even though Richard, Duke of York acknowledged him as his own son. Therefore Edward's children were barred by both their own illegitimacy and their father's. Richard of Gloucester (who was definitely legitimate) had supported his brother Edward to the hilt, but it was the fifteenth century and realpolitik was the name of the game. Edward's first marriage to Eleanor Butler, daughter of the late John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, was a closely guarded secret, but Edward's own illegitimacy was far more widely rumoured. Even Edward's first marriage was beginning to be rumoured (hence Buckingham announcing it publicly, in a damage limitation exercise) and so in the febrile atmosphere of the 1480s the Royal family made the decision to go public about Edward's illegitimacy, with Cicely, Dowager Duchess of York announcing it before an audience of piers and gentry. Therefore, if anyone didn't already know that Edward's sons were illegitimate, they did then. That means they also knew that the younger Edward had no right to be king. Richard, on the other hand, was legitimate and in the absence of legitimate progeny of Edward was next in line to the throne. Hastings' involvement makes sense as he was one of the senior Yorkists and was probably aware of the legitimacy issue, and may even have been involved in the decision for the Dowager Duchess to go public about it. Hastings would have been more aware than most people of the danger of a Lancastrian revival. Henry Tudor, the son of Margaret Beaufort had fled court to France and was rumoured to be looking for soldiers and there were noticeable stirrings among several other powerful Lancastrian supporters, who were fanning rumours of the princes' illegitimacy. Hastings, like all the senior Yorkists would have known that the rumours of illegitimacy would cripple the Yorkist case if the younger Edward became king, whereas Richard was not only legitimate, but was also a proven competent pair of hands, having ruled the north of England very competently for a number of years. Whatever the legitimacy of Edward IV himself, he had been king for 22 years, so Richard could be legitimately positioned as the next in line to the throne, older brother Clarence being dead by that time, and everyone already knew that he knew what he was doing. Therefore, with the ever present threat of a Lancastrian revival, the family almost certainly decided that the princes would have to die in order to retain stability (taking one for the team, so to speak). Hastings was probably sacrificed because he knew too much. Of course, it all backfired, as the rumours of the princes' disappearance quickly overtook and outmatched the rumours of their illegitimacy and over the next year and a half Lancastrian support grew and grew. After Richard's death at Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor, who was himself a usurper, tried to make himself out to be a legitimate ruler by making out that Richard had been the usurper instead, by trying hard to blot out any trace of Edward's first marriage in 1461 and thus painting the young Edward as the legitimate king, although the rumours still circulated (Sir Thomas More, writing fifty years later, alludes to it). What we know of Eleanor's life (that is, the few details which escaped the Tudor purge of references to her) as well as the records of Edwards continuing gifts to her and to her family to keep them quiet, demonstrate that she acted entirely consistently with how a married lady would if her husband was away. There is also no other way to explain the imprisonment for life of the bishop who was said to have married Edward and Eleanor 24 years before. If it was nothing but a rumour the obvious thing would have been to get him to make a public announcement saying so, but the fact that Henry clearly feared what he might say points to it being true. There can be very little doubt that Edward had married Eleanor in secret 1461 but after she failed to provide an heir he abandoned her and found Elizabeth, who he also married in secret and only revealed when Warwick announced that he had arranged for Edward to marry a French princess. It is popular these days to cite the role of Woodvilles and their relationship with Richard as the reason for the deaths of the princes, as is done here. It is true that the Woodvilles had gathered many enemies but the realpolitik of the situation effectively demanded that the princes had to die. By the time of the arrest of the princes, even Elizabeth would have been in no doubt of their illegitimacy and the instability her son's kingship would engender. This documentary relies rather too heavily on Henry Tudor's propaganda to discredit the king he had replaced.
@@Crispvs1 they all had many years and Elizabeth's coronation to raise any objections yet none were until Edward IV was no longer there to dispute them. There was no evidence of a marriage to Eleanor Butler. Edward IV was crowned and anointed King. Like a marriage, its speak now or forever hold your peace.
@@nancybroertjes2292 There certainly was evidence, but the problem is that most of the more easily found evidence was systematically sought out and destroyed by Henry VII's agents. You need to understand that for the aristocratic families of the time, and to a lesser extent the gentry, the primary focus of loyalty was the family and families protected their own, no matter what they had done. The important thing for the House of York was that in Elizabeth Edward had found a queen who could give him an heir (remember that it takes three generations to create a workable dynasty and in 1461 he was a new king by dint of nothing more than a victory in battle and had the legitimate king in custody so his throne was extremely shaky). For the House of York, it was vital that he produce an heir as quickly as possible in order to get that dynasty started. Eleanor, like Elizabeth, was a widow but unlike Elizabeth, who already had two sons and was clearly fertile, Eleanor had produced no children for Sir Thomas Butler and none for Edward, so she would have been seen as barren. The family needed an heir and so Eleanor was bought off to keep quiet (and yes - there is plenty of surviving evidence for that). Read 'Eleanor - The Secret Queen', by John Ashdown-Hill, who marshals together all the surviving evidence (and there is definitely enough to prove the case) to demonstrate that without doubt, Edward IV married Eleanor Butler in 1461.
@@nancybroertjes2292 Not then.. and a marriage contract then could be as little as a spoken promise..he had a marriage contract with Eleanor Butler and threw it aside for the Wydeville woman. He was quite rightly put aside in favour of Richard...others had just as much to gain by the princes disappearing...
@@henryviii8808 That's a *why,* not a *how.* The question of how is more important. Neither Margaret nor any of her allies had access to the princes, who were kept safely deep inside the White Tower with express command of the king that no one should have access to them but the king and his few designated loyal servants.
Have always loved the Plantagenets..Great family full of everything..Love..Hate..Greed..Jealousy.. Usually fantastic warriors..hard.. Just..and everything that a King should be in the Medieval Period. Love this series..Thank you so much for it.
Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis is the first and only living direct descendant of Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford. Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford was the younger brother of King Edward IV. Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis's older sister Katelyn's father, Neil Michael Davis did NOT father redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis but Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford did despite being over 500 years old. 🎭🩰🎨th-cam.com/video/6-HrQW3uapg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/2lxZaTnQbwE/w-d-xo.html
Legally, Richard became protector the very second Edward died. The same way a person named as executor in a will becomes executor on the death of the testator . Neither appointment required the approval of the council or a Court
@@shannond7437 well..Cant fight that. But to be honest, No religion actually teaches harm. But human race somehow interpreted it to harm other people of different religions.
Sure he looks good, until u listen to him spinning a purely fictional tale and presenting it as historical fact. That kind of dishonesty make him pretty ugly pretty quick to me. Who cares, if he has a sumptuous voice and does a wonderful job narrating, when hes lying to u?
This is fascinating! For one, I am a total Anglophile, but this period in England's history is especially interesting to me! Thank you very much for this eye opening video!
I've got the incurable disease of English History. Just in case you missed it, see "the king in the car park" , Phillipa Langley and John Ashdown-Hill absolutely nail the Richard the 3rd issue. (For one thing they found his bones) Ashdown-Hill was a magnificent historian, absolutely unparalleled. Enjoy your anglophilia!!
This 'documentary' relies far too heavily on Henry Tudor's propaganda. We know know far more about Edward's 1461 marriage to Eleanor Butler, widowed daughter of the late Sir John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury than we did a few years ago. The Tudors, who were usurpers, did everything they possibly could to try to discredit Richard. The whole 'descent into evil' narrative is entirely out of character with what we know of him. The fact was that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and therefore his children were illegitimate. Buckingham's announcement of that fact was a damage limitation exercise after rumours had already begun to circulate. With Edward himself known to have been illegitimate (Cicely, Dowager Duchess of York announced it publicly after his death and it is confirmed by his baptismal record) the decision was clearly made that the princes would have to 'take one for the team' (to use a modern expression) to maintain the stability of the Yorkist hold on the kingdom, as the fact of the 1461 marriage had already got out
Dan Jones is one of my favorite historians and the Wars of the Roses high in my favorite periods of English history. No wonder GRRM drew on it so much for his fantasy novels. While there are some inaccurate points in this documentary and it could have benefitted with other leading expert commentary, it's nonetheless intriguing. As to the mystery of the two princes, even if Richard III had nothing to do with their ultimate fate (I personally subscribe to either Buckingham or Henry VII), he was an intelligent, politically savvy and yet dangerously ambitious man nevertheless. Even if he was not the psychopathic monster from Shakespeare's play-he eventually fell as all those vying for power do. I am intrigued to know if the skeletons long reputed to be those of the princes are truly them when the DNA testing is eventually done.
@@abbypengelly1432 there were 2 small skeletons found in the tower of london in the 1600s. It is widely believed that those belong to the 2 prince. Queen elizabeth won't let anyone test the skeletons, so we'll never know if those really are the remains of the 2 prince.
Margaret Beaufort (mother of the future king, Henry VII), and Richard III, both each had much to gain from the deaths of The Princes In The Tower. I believe, weirdly enough, despite being on opposite sides, Margaret Beaufort & Richard (future Richard III) both conspired to kill The Princes. It clears the slate for Margaret (her son, Henry VII, would have two less royals to kill, after or before Richard), and gives Richard cause to assume the throne, since his two nephews (now dead) are the only legitimate heir’s to his brother King Edward VI (now dead), which then clears Richard’s accession to the throne as Richard III.
Actually, they were illegitimate, thanks to Edward's happy marriage to Elizabeth Woodville being bigamous (he married Eleanor Butler, widowed daughter of the late Sir John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury in 1461 and she was still very much alive when he married Elizabeth Woodville. It is only Tudor period propaganda which allows us to think Edward's sons were legitimate, as it gave the actual usurper, Henry Tudor the excuse to claim Richard (actually the legitimate heir to his brother Edward, due to Edward's marriage being invalid and his children therefore bastards) was a usurper. It is only this Tudor propaganda, along with the concerted effort of Henry VII to erase all evidence of Edward's first marriage, which allows us to think of Edward IV's son as Edward V. In reality he was never that and when Richard learned of the bigamous marriage (Clarence had almost certainly known but he had paid for that knowledge with his life) he acted quickly to stop his nephew being crowned, knowing full well that it would utterly discredit the Yorkist claim to the throne. In the absence of a legitimate son to follow him, Edward's legal heir was his brother Richard. Edward 'V' was never really king at all and had no true right to be. It is only Henry VII's propaganda which allows him that courtesy, and specifically for the reason of artificially legitimising Henry VII's claim, which actually rested on nothing stronger than having won a single battle. Henry VIII made sure his son Edward would be crowned as Edward VI to re-enforce the myth, but the reality was that Henry VIII's son was actually Edward V, Queen Victoria's son should actually have been Edward VI and the Duke of Windsor should have been Edward VII before he selfishly abdicated.
Don’t forget, this history is told to us by the tudors and William Shakespeare. Henry VII could have done this after the death of Richard, the boys could have still been alive in the Tower! Could have been a Tudor cover up? The vIctors always write history.
@@debramoss2267 they were discovered in 1674, the princes in the tower. Many think Richard 1 had them Murdered, but it would have been just as convenient for Henry VII not to have them living.
@@Seds245 There's no definite proof that the bones discovered in the 17th century were the Princes, they disinterred them a while ago and thought one set of bones was a girl, and there were animal bones in there too. They could do a DNA test now but the Queen has consistently refused permission to exhume them again.
It seems to me that alot of England's problems could have been solved if people agreed to follow the dying king's will, just ike they generally agree to follow religious protection. Having said that, Richard has gone crazy. I'm not sure he's as loyal as you guys say.
The people who have spoken of his loyalty were the people of his time, people who knew him or who had business with him, people who have read his correspondences with the king and others. It's not a matter of people today developing the new opinion that Richard was loyal. There's documentary evidence for that, and a great deal of it. Even his Tudor detractors wrote of it - his loyalty, his prowess as a soldier for his king, his piety, and his passion for justice for all, including the lowest classes. If even his enemies said that of him, shouldn't that mean something? That's one of many flies in the ointment of this story that he murdered his nephews, and on its own I think it's reason enough to revisit the case that he committed those murders. It makes no sense, and there's not one bit of evidence that they were even murdered, let alone by their uncle Richard. It didn't even clear his path to the throne. (There were three princes, not two, who were ahead of Richard, and one remained in Richard's care in luxury until Richard was killed. Henry VII was actually scared of this 3rd prince - Edward Plantagenet, son of George - so he imprisoned him, something Richard never did.) So why are we so married to Richard's "evil" nature and his guilt in the murder of his two nephews?
Wait a damn second, lol, when they start a playing a soundtrack with the narrator talking about him being “theatrical to save the crown”. Was that not Indiana Jones soundtrack playing!
I personally think his paranoia was well-founded. I think he was caught up in an overthrow of power he didn’t realize until it was too late. His brother named him as Protector to try to spare his son what he fell victim to. I’ve always believed that Beaufort, Stanley, and Woodville were the real culprits. Edward IV had simply gotten in the way.
I agree Elizabeth Woodville was outsmarted by the knaiving, manipulative and treasonous Margaret Beaufort. The boys were probably killed by Buckingham with the aquisesnse of Beaufort and Henry Vll. They had the most to lose and gain. Also Henry Vll had Buckingham executed not long afterwards. Lord Stanley is a prime suspect because he turned against Richard lll at Bosworth and he probably is guilty as well.
@@eac1235 When were the princes killed? We only know when they were kept away from the windows. We don't even know why. (For their protection?) And if the two princes were actually killed, why let the 3rd live? Because Edward of Warwick was still under attainder, but the Titulus Regius had to be reversed to make Henry's rule legitimate by his wife, Elizabeth Plantagenet. If she's legitimate, then Edward V and Richard of York are legitimate, and ahead of Henry in succession. Henry Tudor and his faction are the only ones who benefit by killing only two of the three young princes. (Henry actually needed Edward of Warwick alive to refute Lambert Simnel.) I think Richard would have protected his nephews with his life, regardless of their legitimacy. He had a long and spotless reputation as a good and decent human being, generous and forgiving to a fault - literally. We know what kind of tyrant Henry VII was.
@@beenaplumber8379 Exactly, I suspect Henry's scheming mother the "pious" Margaret Beaufort and Buckingham had their hands in the prince's "disappearance" most definitely! She had, from Henry's birth, planned for her only son to be king. She saw an opportunity and took it. And it worked. Margaret was very intelligent, educated and extremely ambitious, Even more-so than her son Henry Vii, I do not believe that with Richard III's in tact reputation as a loyal subject, descent human being and loving husband would he ever harm the boys. Anne Neville, his wife, however, had every reason to wish them dead, but I still believe that only Margaret had the nerve, contacts and deviousness to go through with it, thinking it "God's will" that her son be King. It's a true crime story where one must look at who had the most to gain. Motive, means and murderous profile. Margaret was a religious fanatic who thought she was a saint. She had a grandioss ego with legitimate rights to the throne, albeit through her son. Rumors were spread about Richard III's hand in the prince's deaths to undermine his reputation. To smear him and to point the finger at someone else ( pansy ) so no one would think to look in Margaret's direction. Very common in murder crimes, even today. I really wish they would solve this cold case. We now have the means to do so, but they are STILL keeping the truth under wraps. The evidence is clear! But the truth would most probably put an end to the British Monarchy as we know it.
I think the videos are great by the way. I think it's far superior to other documentaries. I may disagree with a statement or two, but that doesn't mean the other 99% of it isn't really well done.
Novi k There are much better historical accounts about the time like Sharon Penman’s The Sunne in Splendour or We Speak No Treason. However, like most apologists for Richard III the authors have to come up with some pretty wild theories to exonerate Richard III. After reading the Sunne in Splendour I was convinced of RIII’s innocence. Then I started reading non fiction works about the time, and now I think if the boys were murdered Richard III was responsible.
brontewcat That is nonsense that just doesn’t stack up. When Henry VII becomes king he denounces RIII for his “crimes” and lists them. There is NO mention of the princes’ deaths. Because they were still alive. Read The Daughter of Time for the best critical analysis of the period. Be in no doubt, Henry VII ordered their deaths.
brontewcat Oh yes because Sharon penman is the World Authority on English Mediaeval History...her being American. 🙄 A good book but no more factual than Gregory’s ... if you’re going to suggest books , might it not be better to suggest FACTUAL ones by Historians that KNOW What they’re talking about. ...?
Ballroomdiva I was not suggesting she was an authority. I was pointing out the better fictional accounts and theories fictional authors have come up with over recent times. Gregory is just one of a long line of authors who have come up with alternatives to Richard III. But Gregory is not the first one to suggest Margaret Beaufort. Most of the alternatives have come up in one way or another in non fiction accounts.
From the video; “His (Richard’s) rule will never remain safe as long as his nephews are alive” * Just the opposite. The nephews were hostages. Them being alive kept some of Richard’s opponents (his mother) from going to war against him. Once Richard killed the nephews, then all his enemies were unleashed upon him.
Nothing was more damaging to Richard than the disappearance of his nephews. If he had killed them, he would have had a doctor announce that one of the many diseases endemic to childhood killed them. The court would have gone into mourning, Masses would have been said for their souls and they would have been buried with all due circumstance, just as his brother did with the murder of Henry VI. Obviously HenryVII had no idea what happened to them, or he would not have been so freaked by Perkin Warbeck. He treated Lambert Simnel as a joke. Warbeck was tortured, his face bashed in and he was forced to read an absurd confession before being hanged, but his child survived.
@@nbenefiel You know who else scared Henry VII? Perkin Warbeck's fellow prisoner, Edward Plantagenet, son of Richard's older brother George, Duke of Clarence, and also ahead of Richard in the line of succession. Edward IV's sons needed Parliament to overturn Titulus Regius in order to reign, but for Edward Plantagenet, it was a simple matter of releasing him of his father's attainder. Why would anybody kill only two of the THREE princes who were nearer to the crown than Richard? Certainly Henry VII kept Edward P. imprisoned for the rest of his short life for this reason, but Richard never did. The Two Princes were closer than Edward P, so maybe Richard kept them under closer watch for their own safety. I think it's possible Richard had them spirited away for their own safety, with maybe a plan to bring them home after things had settled a bit, but then he died. While Edward P. was alive, Richard and his wife Queen Ann raised him in comfort, at Middleham Castle, then at Westminster Palace during his brief reign, I believe. Hardly the action of someone who was so afraid of his nephews overthrowing him.
There are a handful of likely suspects, Richard among them. But I agree with moonewitch, hes just too perfect of a scapegoat. Remember almost all the written material about this was written 50-100 years later. When smearing Richard came in real handy. And 1 of the things speaking against it being Richard is, that the disappearance of the princes made things very difficult for him. And why kill the princes? He didnt need to, they had been declared bastards and as such were ineligible to claim the throne and no threat to him. Richard was the 3rd son, the 2nd son, Richards older brother the Duke of Clarence, had a son, the Earl of Warwick, but Clarence had been attainted for treason against Edward IV, and as such both he and his son, Warwick, were ineligible to claim the throne, and Warwick was hence no threat to Richard. And Richard let Warwick live. It was, in fact, Henry VII, who executed Warwick, after he killed Richard at Bosworth and claimed the throne and was quite thorough in securing his claim. So both Warwick and the 2 princes were ineligible, yet Richard killed the princes but let Warwick live? Doesnt make sense. And in any case, this is 1 of the most dishonest "documentaries", Ive ever seen on the subject. Its just a theory, almost entirely fictional, based only on a few known dates and names. It would be fine to put forward as a theory, if he called it a theory and went through all the circumstantial evidence for AND against, but he doesnt. He simply cherrypicked the few facts useful for his narrative and desired conclusion, ignored all else, spun a story with no evidence to back it, and then presented it as historical fact.
Is it just me or does anyone else wonder if Richard had anything to do with his brother, King Edward’s death? I believe the moment Edward told him he was to bebthe protector, Richard began to plot Edward’s death. Evil was already in him, greed brought it to the surface.
I have researched the Plantagenet dynasty and in particular the reign of Edward IV & the aftermath there of. I truly believe Margret Beaufort and her husband, Lord Thomas Stanley, had a hand in the death of the princes in the tower. He was sherif of the Tower of London, so could come and go as he pleased. She had an unshakable belief her son was destined to be king, and she loathed the Yorkists. Together they were a powerful, wealthy and formidable duo. Plus, as an mother knows, we will move heaven and earth for our children.
You have to remember as well Lord Thomas Stanley was very loyal to Richard at this point (during the keeping of the young Princes), that's why he was appointed that position. It took up until the 'last moment' during the Battle of Bosworth Field for him and his brother to finally side with Henry Tudor, his own step son. If anything, I could believe it better that he had a hand on the murders based on the order of Richard III, rather than the order of his wife.
Caroline Araujo several reasons. The nobility and Richard himself, were hugely suspicious of the Woodville’s and what they saw as them wanting to ‘freeze out’ the rest of the late kings council. There was also a massive rumour mill at court; their were multiple factions who believed in every aspect of scandal. I also believe, up to a point, he started on a negative path and became powerless against to stop events.
Quite entertaining, but has a common problem when it comes to historical mysteries - instead of following the evidence, whereever it may lead, he starts out with a conviction of, what happened, and sets out to prove it, cherrypicking and highlighted anything that fits his narrative and disregarding anything that doesnt. Its investigative malpractice so often seen, whether its the Princes in the Tower, the death of Richard II or the identity of Jack the Ripper. He picks a handful of the few known facts, and then he builds an entire story around it based on speculation and just pure guesswork to reach his desired conclusion. Worst of all, he presents this story as fact despite having zero evidence for it. While it was 45 min of entertainment, I cannot take such "documentaries" any more serious than a Hollywood movie. The honest documentary would account for known information, state circumstantial evidence for and against Richard being the culprit as well as other suspects. Im fine with laying out this story as a theory, but it should be just 1 theory among other equally likely theories, and it should contain ALL known information for and against, and he should clearly state, when he is hypothesising and cannot prove it. Hell, there is not even any evidence, that the princes died in that tower. It is highly likely, that they did, but there is no proof. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, that points to Richard, but there is no proof. And there is also a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Richard NOT killing the princes, which is completely ignored in this fictional tale. I really need to stop watching these "documentaries", the dishonesty in inventing the preferred history and claiming it as fact just pisses me off.
I think official history of the world has been distorted beyond recognition. When it comes to knowing genuine history, we are in the dark. I do not trust official history sources. I believe it to be a fabrication, a mixture of semi-truths and fiction. Powerful people can easily forge/tamper with the written word, and history is written by the victors, who will surely write history in whichever way it’s convenient for them. We’re taught that official history is based on scientific study, and verified by experts, but, as you start re-examining each separate part of official history, you start to realise that its full of holes & contradictions. As you start to question the so-called evidence that they base official history on, you realise that it’s very weak form of evidence. When they use historical written sources as evidence for their official history, you will often find that those sources are not genuine/authentic originals, but always copies of copies. During the time when the old world order was being turned over, and taken over by the new world order, there was a global campaign to destroy the evidence of the old world order. During that time they were burning entire libraries around the world, destroying books, artefacts, art works, and even entire historical buildings.
I totally agree with you. It's many years since I have read anything about these people, but as far as I remember the Woodvilles was a very greedy family and they got what they wanted. So I am wondering why Edward would make his brother protector, if it was because he knew they would try to grab power and maybe even do what Richard did and make themselves even richer and more powerful. They didn't follow the kings wishes so I think Richard was in his right to do what he did. I just remember when I read about them I really disliked them. I also think Richard may not have killed the boys, but instead it was the mother of Henry th 7th, but we will never know all we can do is guess. Didn't they find the bones of 2 small boys on a staircase in the tower? If you think this documentary is bad, then have you seen the White Princess on HBO? It's about Henry the 7th and Elizabeth, and the only thing that is historical are their names. They have Lizzie as they call her be in love with Richard III and having had sex with him and her mother has replaced her younger son with a peasant boy, so he wasn't really killed in the tower. It is just crazy. All these historical series HBO makes like the Spanish Princess (Kathrine of Aragon), Mary Queen of Scots and another one called the White Queen. They make these women all the same type of women real Zena types, that always saves the day and they are clever, cunning and brave and then you look at a real portrait of them and you see these women who are mousy compared to these beautiful actors. IT's the same with Vikings, they are dressed as if they really wanted to do Game of Thrones, having vikings in leather and with shaved heads. Vikings were known to love and care for their hair and wore colorful clothing. I just feel disappointed when I sit there with my cup of tea and bag of nuts and look forward to some history and that is what I get. Young people will watch this crap and think that is how it was, with lots of steaming sex;)
@@MissWitchiepoo aren't all of the examples that you named genreed as historical fiction and not considered documentaries at all. Like some of them (The White Queen and Spanish Princess) are based on historical fiction books by Phillippa Gregory. Vikings is also based on mythologized history (as it has been millenia since the source events). Let entertainment be entertainment.
I love the Wars of the Roses because it's not just about history, it's deep study of human nature, psychology in fact. What makes people compelled to do what they do. The more I learn about each of them, the more I find they are equally likable and unlikable at the same time. As much as you can detest Richard iii for what he did - he lived an honorable life for 30 years, faithful to his wife, loyal to the King, good son and father. Then the last 2 years of his life, especially the 13 weeks after the King's death, he totally goes off the rails. He died a noble death, fighting as a brave warrior would. But I wondered in the end, when he could have retreated, he chose to die on the battlefield because he had nothing much to live for - his wife and son died earlier. How much was he affected by their loss and the fact he was in mourning made him even more irrational. Did he enjoy the power of being King, or did the burden of constantly being paranoid and lonely made him so miserable, he longed to check out.
Good video, but the premise that Richard wasn't just a cartoon villain but instead had reasons for what he did and felt that he was justified is pretty obvious and applies for basically every monster of human history. Most people have at some point wanted something that wasn't theirs, they just aren't as willing to step over so many legal/moral lines to get there or don't have the power and opportunity to act on it. Some of the most violent actions have risen from "the people in power oppressed me and/or my people, so now I deserve revenge" (see 1940s Germany/most genocidal revolutions). Sometimes it is "I have the right to this, so it doesn't matter what rights of others I have to crush to get what is mine" (see slavery, infanticide and abuse excuses). Sometimes it is "I know what is best for me and mine, whether that's my family or even my country or the planet, so my actions are for the greater good, meaning that breaking some rules to gain more power/money is acceptable" (see all long-term politicians and to some extent basically every single human being at some point).
I think that was the wrong premise. I think he should have started with a blank slate and presented the case against Richard. There is none. There is a record of rumors (only one contemporary, published by Mancini) and speculation. There is no evidence the princes were murdered, or even died, let alone any evidence that points the finger at Richard. People connect the dots as they like, but they always ignore the exonerating evidence, like the care Richard showed for the THIRD prince who stood between him and the crown, Edward Plantagenet. Why would Richard kill only two and not the 3rd if his motive was to clear his way to the crown? I see no evidence that a murder ever took place, or that the Two Princes even died before old age, in the Tower or elsewhere. He should have started from there and followed the evidence. But then it would have been a very short program.
Even with the narrator suggesting that Richard was just carrying out Edward IV’s wishes and doing what was good for the kingdom, I still don’t see it. Richard III was a power hungry leech and deserved what he got from Henry VII
Agreed. I hear the story then something stating it isn’t what it appears to be… then more crazy self serving behavior then… no, he was protecting… huh? I don’t see that at all.
This episode is poorly argued. It begins with the thesis that young Princes simply had to die, but follows that up with a demonstration of what it proposed to dismiss: Richard's ruthlessness and unwillingness to compromise with those who stood in his way. The House of York crumbled due to specific decisions Richard made - few of which were inevitable or even necessary. Richard was paranoid and painted himself into a corner - that's why the Princes died.
@@nbenefiel That's why I think it's possible that Richard sent the princes away somewhere safe. Everybody with a claim to the throne wanted them dead, but to the Woodvilles they were tools for their return to power. Sending them away secretly would mean the Woodvilles would still assume they were in the Tower, and they wouldn't go looking for them. And as long as the whereabouts of the Two Princes were unknown to the public, there was little reason for anyone to risk everything to come after Prince Edward Plantagenet, who was relatively safe in Westminster Palace.
Their bodies were found in the reign of Charles II, they were found buried under stones in a staircase in the Tower, when some demolition work was being carried out. Their remains are in a minster Abbey.
@@susanmccormick6022 not true they were compared to relatives which showed dental familiarity. Read Alison Weir's book on Princes in the Tower, she has all the information there
This man (Richard) is the embodiment of the quote:
"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain".
Literally so true
Quote from where?
@@MS-zu8ds From "Dark Knight - Batman" 😁
“Live by the sword, die by the sword”.
@@margo3367That’s what King Jesus said
How cool is it that so many of the buildings where these huge historical events took place are still standing?
Can someone tell me why & when Baynards Castle was destroyed?
They’re just buildings but think of all the history they’ve stood witness to.
It's very cool, Mrs. Severed Head.
@@susanmccormick6022 It was destroyed by the Great Fire of London in 1666.
Unlike America, Europe tend to preserve history.
Most people today wouldn't last one week in this kind of society. I know I wouldn't.
True. How long would they say to last in ours ?
Therefore I think that argument is moot
Agree with the OP
But people of former days wouldn´t also last one week in our so called "modern world"!
I rather die than live in this kind of society.
That 12yr old "boy" looks like my 22yr old son.
Right? Teenage boys look like they’re 10 until they’re 16. Could have even undercast lol
@@saoirsedonnelly2352 oh, depends, on the parents genes and the race, too. My friend's son, back when he barely reached 12, was tall enough, with enough body mass and with an already showing facial hair (upper lip first), to EASILY pass for a 16yo.... till he spoke, of course. 3😉
And another friend, but this time from Japan, looked like a 15, where she was, in fact, pass 25...
I won't argue, however, with the fact that the actor was not chosen well.
To see is to believe
@@saoirsedonnelly2352 Lie I have son he is 13 he looked like 25 that what people and my family said and I'm not mad at them because he looks like freaking 25
He looks my age.....I’m 32 but I look 22
I'm addicted to these videos with Dan Jones! I have always loved history of the UK even as a kid when you had to look stuff up in encyclopedias.
I am addicted to Dan Jones! :-)
Hahahahahaha he is a good looking kid!
Renee, I used to sneak to the basement and took a volume of the encyclopedia to read under the covers in bed.
Renee, I also learned I was sixth cousin to the late Princess of Wales.
Renee, I would still advise u to look it up in encyclopedias. This was my first Dan Jones "documentary", and it will be my last. This has very little to do with known facts, almost all of it is pure fictional. I call it fictional, coz hes presenting it, as if it was truth, but it is not. This is his theory of what happened, and its very dishonest to cherrypick the few facts, that fit his desired conclusion, ignore all those that do not fit, and then invent an entire story and present it as historical fact. This is not history. This is fiction.
If he was an honest presenter, he would lay out, what known facts there are, present the likely suspects (yes, there are others besides Richard), present the possible theories for each including all circumstantial evidence for AND against each theory, all the while ALWAYS clearly stating what is proven historical fact (which is very little), what is extrapolation, what is speculation, and what is pure guesswork/his opinion. He does none of that. Plz dont confuse this with actual history.
Why does Edward, who is supposed to be 12, look like he's 26?
This is strange indeed.
@@elhombredeoro955 He's probably the director's son.
Kyle S. Same with the power rangers in the 90s. 😂
hamberderhelper Probably the rules for child actors make it easier to use adult actors
That's what I thought, too. Looks like the boy is 16, but never 12. Maybe the smaller one is 12 instead.
Kings may come and kings may go but hell hath no fury like a pissed off Queen'
As every married man knows....
Like the anarchy era fury where Maud (Empress Matilda) fought King Steven to the point of the collapse of England.
Lol
rubbish
@@niccoarcadia4179 The first English Civil War, that historians tend to overlook.
Even if you could convince me that he didn't have the boys killed, you cant convince me that he was doing any of this to honor his brothers wishes. He wanted power for himself and seemed to have no thought for what his brother would have wanted. I also think its crazy that we still call Elizabeth Woodville "power hungry" for wishing to see her family succeed and her distrust of Edwards brothers. I think she has every reason to distrust them based on their behavior and I think the Woodville family were naturally trying to protect themselves and their interests as all families would have in their position. Just my thoughts.
And your thought are 100 percent accurate👑
Basically the Woodvilles dared to rise above their station in the eyes of the courtiers. Elizabeth was a brave woman and she helped avenge the deaths of her sons in the end. The whole realm felt Richard had gone too far, which he did.
Basically, the one really at fault here is Edward IV. Richard will protect himself, the Woodvilles will protect themselves. But this conflict wouldn't have risen in the first place if both sides weren't placed in that fighting positions due to Edward's explosive loins.
@@batelshimoni1078 explosive loins? Wtf? Is he not supposed to sire an heir? Should’ve given Richard the same treatment he gave the other brother.
Yeah I don't care for this whitewashing of Richard III that's been going on lately. Lots of apologizing going on. They gave him a very nice funeral when they found his bones a few years back, especially for a child murderer. I accept that things may not be as simple as they're made out to be. But there's no getting around him murdering those 2 kids so he could be king. His infamy is deserved.
The true Game of Thrones is equally terrifying!
Art do not copies life. Life is much worst.
George RR Martin based A Game Of Thrones on the Wars Of The Roses and you can see the similarities (except the dragons & white walkers). Where in the WOTR you had the “Kingmaker” and in GOT you had the “Kingslayer”
@@nichhodge8503 exactly this was centuries before g.o.t. that was based on this and that can't compare to this at all.history rules.
It ended better too
@@JTuniversenet It's strange that people seem to think that GOT is the only series to show medieval life. There have been plenty before that showed how brutal the past was.
This is my new favorite channel. It isn't the same old story regurgitated with new narration. The story, narration, reenactments, etc. are a step above all others. I can't help but binge on all these videos since finding them 😁❤
He ruined his entire bloodline in 6 MONTHS!?!?!?!?!?!?! And I thought my life was a mess.
Quarantine brought me to multiple history documents. TH-cam recommendations is smt huh?
same plus, who knows about six the musical? no one, just me? ok...
@@malaiahooks2215 don't lose ur head
Malaia Hooks I do I love Tudor history so interesting
i’ve become obsessed with british monarchs also once?
I have always been interested in the miveil times but all of this stuff has me glued to mostly all of the monarchs!
Tip to any parents of a future king out there; never let your child be snatched and “protected” by a stranger!
Thanks I will try to remember that !
He's the uncle not a stranger lol
Advice I'm sure will come in handy, for many of us 🤣🤣
@@sese6227 🤣🤣
Most of the Plantagenets were blonde & hair's a bit short for the time.I am a Ricardian but always wondered why he killed Hastings,Vaughn & Earl Rivers.The latter only carrying out his sister's command.Read his poetry if u can.He was a very gifted man.
It amazing to think if the 2 prince's weren't killed it would have changed history dramatically, they be no Henry Vll and they would be no protestants no bloody mary and no burning of protestants ....
Not to mention Henry VIII would never have founded the Church of England and England could have remained with the Pope
@@MelissaK133 co
Think: “Blackadder” series one: that the princes were never murdered sets the whole story up...
The paths of us British could have been so different
If the princes weren't killed Richard wouldn't have been King, but Henry Tudor and Margaret (Beaufort?) and all the nobility that still resented that the crown passing to the house of York would still have been around so there is no guarantee that Henry Tudor wouldn't have made a bid for the crown.
so basically man go's crazy to assure his nephew gets to be king by then killing his nephew
Man kills his nephew, to ensure his brother's will is carried out, following his death. He just forgot that one of those orders included his nephew, becoming the new ruler... whoops. The devil's in the details, & Richard clearly wasn't a stickler for details 😬
The first time ever I laughed over this moment in history! Wickedly funny, the both of you! 😆😆
@@sese6227Richard was in a tough position, if he doesn’t seize power then his enemies can eventually influence that boy king to have Richard stripped of power or maybe even executed.
In 1674, two skeletons were discovered under the stairs in the tower and reburied in Westminster Abbey. John Ashdown-Hill, a 56-yearold PhD student at Essex University, hopes that DNA analysis of a locket of hair believed to belong to the boys' niece, Mary Tudor, could reveal the answer.....I hope this is the boys.
Hey, was it? Do u know
@@GuilhermeSilva-lt6rw thankyou
@@GuilhermeSilva-lt6rw Im not sure why she would deny such a facinsting discovery. Disrespectful to the remains of potential royals of england if found to be true. But if to be true, they deserve a proper burial. And pushes the anti york propaganda which furthers her claim of ancestral right. Not that it matters now, its a one of those great mysteries of history
Unknown why would she refuse? She is 94 years old. Why would it matter several hundred years later other than to identify them and give them a proper burial. A mystery solved as to what happened to these kids.
@@kimclarke5018 they gave richard the third a burial a few years ago and solved that mystery so why not this one?
The war of the roses is far more interesting than a song of ice and fire. And that’s an amazing book/show
War of the Rose's came on PBS a couple of times
I also have some of the books based on this war/divide between the bothers. I've a few more to get to complete it
GoT is heavily based on the Wars of the Roses, with a little of the Heptarchy sprinkled in. GRRM's fantasies are pretty much ripoffs of actual English history. The new House of the Dragon series appears to be based on the Anarchy. Simply proving that fact is far crazier than fiction.
It should be since GRR Martin based thr books on the war of the roses
Love anything Dan Jones does. He makes history so interesting and engaging. Who needs fiction when you have this reality?
His books are very enjoyable as well. I have a few
It helps that he isn't so bad to look at either 😏
@@NessaBear90 Yes, and the tattoos!
Absolutely !!! I get so annoyed at the historical misleading of events in the TV series ! people think they know history watching them when history is fascinating just as it happened. Dan Jones knows how to tell history !!
Well, 500 years worth of speculation on these "murders in the Tower" that began with a gossip surge after the kids were removed from the premises to prevent further kidnapping attempts was quite a piece of fiction to begin it all with.
Something i learned in history is that Treason is the best solution against people who are against your interest. 😆😆
Off with their head
Pretty much. Another constant....all hell breaks loose, when someone believes their cushy lifestyle is about to be infringed upon, by a new ruler. The amount of insanity & destruction, that ensues because of greed, is astounding.
Ha ha - agreed. Clever observation - medieval equivalent of ‘there is a fire’ - it immediately gets everyone attention and mobilize masses to fight.
In 2021, “Treason!” is basically, “Racist” or “Nazi”! It’s bollucks, but it’s all cowards have when they can’t call you anything real to get their way.
3 years and I still come back to these, I’m not even English or into UK history stuff, I just find this to be really cleanly produced and well informed, thank you!!
Sometimes the obvious answer is the answer. I disagree heavily that Lady Margaret Beaufort or Henry Tudor himself had any involvement in their disappearance, and there are problems with claiming they did.
1. Richard had the most to gain via the boys disappearance. What often gets overlooked is that he had them declared illegitimate due to their mother's (Elizabeth Woodville's) lower nobility background. This was a move that was controversial even back then and could've easily been challenged by even other yorkists, who may attempt to place one of the boys on the throne instead of him. So the princes just disappear right after he declared them illegitimate so he was less likely to be challenged on that move? Seems very convenient for Richard. Leaving the boys alive after having declared them illegitimate was a huge risk.
2. Henry Tudor wasn't even in England at the time of the disappearance, and they were already missing for a good two years before Henry even set foot back in the country. As for Margaret Beaufort, her husband Lord Stanley, didn't become constable of London, and therefore in charge of the tower, until well and after the boys went missing. Plus, it's a bit of stretch to say that Margaret convinced whoever may carried it out for her, that this would hopefully in the off chance, might backfire on Richard which they had no way of knowing it would, and then gamble everything on the yorkists splitting because of it, and then again gambling everything on Henry winning against Richard. How would they even know Henry would beat Richard? It would've been all for nothing if he didn't. Claiming she was involved relies on her either knowing or guessing everything that did happen would happen.
The boys were declared bastards by parliament because a bishop came forward and confessed he had first person knowledge of Edwards pre-construction of marriage with another woman not his wife. Thus all of Edwards children with Elizabeth Woodville were bastardized and could not legally inherit the throne. Richard naturally inherited the Kingship. He lost his crown due to betrayal by the Stanley's at Bosworth field.
Same thought. How would they kill princes if they are not that powerful back then. it’s not easy
Richard gained nothing from the boys disappearance. We know they were alive after Richard’s coronation. There was never a rebellion in support of them. If Richard had them killed, the only possible benefit to him would have been if all of England knew they were dead.
Also Woodville then conspired with LMB to take Richard down. Which if LMB killed her sons or appeared to at all, obviously that wouldnt have happened.
@@ellenyoung8283 There was no solid evidence of that, so it could have easily overturned. And there was an attempt to rescue the boys and restore Edward V to the throne. As long as they were alive, they were a threat to Richard.
Richard had a slightly curved spine? This must've aired before they found his remains.
In the intro, they did describe him as a hunchback...?
I don't know when this aired, but what a funny way to put it when everybody has a curved spine
@@jinxingxuelang Richard had severe scoliosis which did indeed severely affect his spine, as proved by the excavation of his skeleton.
Remember what a good tailor can do for you. He could afford it.
Saw a different doco of Richard III using a man with similar affliction, his hunchback not obvious at all
I am addicted to these videos. I enjoy learning more about British history.
THE ALL BRITISH ARE BLOODY HISTORY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AGRY WITH POWER I REMEMBER QUEEN DAYAN REST IN PEACE QUEEN 🙏
@@shakiramoha9682 Wot?
Same. It helps that these documantaries are being brought so excellently. 😢😢those poor innocent boys tho😢😢
This is the only episode I’ve seen where they wear gloves when handling this artifacts
I was worried the whole time that spit would fly out of his mouth onto the book!
@@snikkerr1949 omg-🤯. That just happened & I had the exact same thought... Glad to know I must not be as weird as I once believed. Phew! 😅
I hate when they handle those relics bare handed.
They should wear gloves and mask
He wears gloves in another series too.
He could have been a good uncle and protector of the realm and lived a long a prosperous life being the king's regent. Greed brought him and his whole family down.
Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis is the first and only living direct descendant of Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford. Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford was the younger brother of King Edward IV. Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis's older sister Katelyn's father, Neil Michael Davis did NOT father redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis but Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford did despite being over 500 years old. 🎭🩰🎨th-cam.com/video/6-HrQW3uapg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/2lxZaTnQbwE/w-d-xo.html
Good point, but also imagine having a claim to the throne and risking your life to defeat scottish rebels for your brother and then having to hand over the crown to his spoiled 12 year old son… you can almost understand richards motives when trying to put yourself in his shoes
Not greed, but self preservation. Richard didn't want Edward and the Woodvilles to come after him and his son. He needed the power of the King to protect himself. The circumstance forced his hand.
@@vivianfoster702 lies! came after who? they were the only one who is rightfully king, Richard is 3rd son, he was miles away from the succession
@@theuniverseisme432 he was a scum! and clearly a man of low morality unfit to b kng
The tower of London was a Royal Palace as well as a prison . So no the boys were staying as aplace of safety
The young Prince/King Edward V was 12 years old; could they have not found an actor somewhere nearer the age of 12 and not 22?
ive seen this many times in royal documentaries they do this because these documentaries has low budgets and they use drama uni students to help them out. but its very rare that they use actual kids coz it might be too young to understand the story or too much for them at a young age. and it always depends on if the parents of the actors agrees with BBC to have their child acting out such a violent story.
OMG YES! It was so off-putting, and jarring. I had trouble following the narrative at times.
King Edward IV was a tall man. Many 12 years old boys are quite tall. They are not all midgets.
@@davidlogan4329yes but they are closer to 5ft not 6ft, anyway, Edward V is said to be 4’ 10”
@@davidlogan4329 It aint even the height; that man looks grown with kids , a mortgage and a hairline thats fixing to abdicate the crown.
Edward IV appointed Richard as the Protector when he was dying, but the Woodvilles raised Edward the V, and the Woodvilles also wanted to keep power.
In the movie he was married to Anne ..warrick the kingmakers daughter
Not true.
@@nobodysbaby5048 What's not true?
What would life have been like had the 2 boys lived?🤔
@@LordCarolusMagnus There is a chance that it would have played out differently. The Woodvilles, Buckingham and Rivers would have definitely sided with Edward, and that arguably would have convinced Stanley to join them instead. Not to mention that Henry's claim to the throne was much weaker than Edward's, and without the hatred against Richard present he probably would have never been able to rally enough men to his cause.
There would have been no Tudors, that's for sure.
@@Lina-lq7jm No Tudors means no Queen Elizabeth I, no defeat of the Spanish Armada, and no British Empire.
@@theeclectic6206 Maybe instead of Elizabeth, there would have been another great queen, who knows...
And Spanish Armada... I'm pretty sure that it wouldnt have even happened, so there would have been no need to defeat it.
@@locassen please don't forget that Lord Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, Henry Vll's mother, who no doubt influenced his decision to withdraw his support from Richard at Bosworth.
I am surprised that nobody attempted to kill Richard during all of this time.
Flower Petals he was killed by Henry VII amd started the Tudor Dynasty.
@@kimguerrero8560 Thank you.
@@kimguerrero8560 i was wondering what his right hand man did that got his head chopped off
@@freebird1ification he rebelled in 1483. Bad weather and bad luck, plus Buckingham was not a good lord to his people, so they sold him to Richard. Buckingham's son and heir would also be beheaded in the course of time, by Henry the Eighth.
@@freebird1ification Buck was always unstable & rose against Richard though I am not sure why.
Nice production quality. Very well done!
3:16 That's suppose to be a 12 year old boy? He looks about 20.
It is sad for Edward and his brother. They were only kids and they met their end. People who visit the place where the princes were murdered, that it's haunted because they hear voices and see ghosts of 2 boys playing.
Olivia_ Playz2003 I have been to the Tower of London many times, including the spot where the boys were found, and I can tell you that nothing like that happens. No ghosts, or voices. Any claims other than that are obviously from people smoking a bit too much of the green stuff, or those that already hear “voices.”
Lord Buckingham was he slippery
If Richard was responsible for the boys, supposedly fond of them, and he was already crowned king by then and so in theory their threat of inheritance to him had passed, why did he not move heaven and earth to find out what happened to them
Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was undoubtedly bigamous and so his children were illegitimate. Added to that Edward himself was illegitimate (he was born in Calais rather more than ten months after Cicely, Duchess of York had last seen Richard, Duke of York and one of the archers of the garrison was named as his Godfather on his baptismal record, meaning he was almost certainly Edward's father, even though Richard, Duke of York acknowledged him as his own son.
Therefore Edward's children were barred by both their own illegitimacy and their father's. Richard of Gloucester (who was definitely legitimate) had supported his brother Edward to the hilt, but it was the fifteenth century and realpolitik was the name of the game. Edward's first marriage to Eleanor Butler, daughter of the late John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, was a closely guarded secret, but Edward's own illegitimacy was far more widely rumoured. Even Edward's first marriage was beginning to be rumoured (hence Buckingham announcing it publicly, in a damage limitation exercise) and so in the febrile atmosphere of the 1480s the Royal family made the decision to go public about Edward's illegitimacy, with Cicely, Dowager Duchess of York announcing it before an audience of piers and gentry.
Therefore, if anyone didn't already know that Edward's sons were illegitimate, they did then. That means they also knew that the younger Edward had no right to be king. Richard, on the other hand, was legitimate and in the absence of legitimate progeny of Edward was next in line to the throne.
Hastings' involvement makes sense as he was one of the senior Yorkists and was probably aware of the legitimacy issue, and may even have been involved in the decision for the Dowager Duchess to go public about it. Hastings would have been more aware than most people of the danger of a Lancastrian revival. Henry Tudor, the son of Margaret Beaufort had fled court to France and was rumoured to be looking for soldiers and there were noticeable stirrings among several other powerful Lancastrian supporters, who were fanning rumours of the princes' illegitimacy.
Hastings, like all the senior Yorkists would have known that the rumours of illegitimacy would cripple the Yorkist case if the younger Edward became king, whereas Richard was not only legitimate, but was also a proven competent pair of hands, having ruled the north of England very competently for a number of years. Whatever the legitimacy of Edward IV himself, he had been king for 22 years, so Richard could be legitimately positioned as the next in line to the throne, older brother Clarence being dead by that time, and everyone already knew that he knew what he was doing.
Therefore, with the ever present threat of a Lancastrian revival, the family almost certainly decided that the princes would have to die in order to retain stability (taking one for the team, so to speak). Hastings was probably sacrificed because he knew too much.
Of course, it all backfired, as the rumours of the princes' disappearance quickly overtook and outmatched the rumours of their illegitimacy and over the next year and a half Lancastrian support grew and grew. After Richard's death at Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor, who was himself a usurper, tried to make himself out to be a legitimate ruler by making out that Richard had been the usurper instead, by trying hard to blot out any trace of Edward's first marriage in 1461 and thus painting the young Edward as the legitimate king, although the rumours still circulated (Sir Thomas More, writing fifty years later, alludes to it). What we know of Eleanor's life (that is, the few details which escaped the Tudor purge of references to her) as well as the records of Edwards continuing gifts to her and to her family to keep them quiet, demonstrate that she acted entirely consistently with how a married lady would if her husband was away. There is also no other way to explain the imprisonment for life of the bishop who was said to have married Edward and Eleanor 24 years before. If it was nothing but a rumour the obvious thing would have been to get him to make a public announcement saying so, but the fact that Henry clearly feared what he might say points to it being true. There can be very little doubt that Edward had married Eleanor in secret 1461 but after she failed to provide an heir he abandoned her and found Elizabeth, who he also married in secret and only revealed when Warwick announced that he had arranged for Edward to marry a French princess.
It is popular these days to cite the role of Woodvilles and their relationship with Richard as the reason for the deaths of the princes, as is done here. It is true that the Woodvilles had gathered many enemies but the realpolitik of the situation effectively demanded that the princes had to die. By the time of the arrest of the princes, even Elizabeth would have been in no doubt of their illegitimacy and the instability her son's kingship would engender.
This documentary relies rather too heavily on Henry Tudor's propaganda to discredit the king he had replaced.
@@Crispvs1 they all had many years and Elizabeth's coronation to raise any objections yet none were until Edward IV was no longer there to dispute them. There was no evidence of a marriage to Eleanor Butler. Edward IV was crowned and anointed King. Like a marriage, its speak now or forever hold your peace.
@@nancybroertjes2292 There certainly was evidence, but the problem is that most of the more easily found evidence was systematically sought out and destroyed by Henry VII's agents.
You need to understand that for the aristocratic families of the time, and to a lesser extent the gentry, the primary focus of loyalty was the family and families protected their own, no matter what they had done.
The important thing for the House of York was that in Elizabeth Edward had found a queen who could give him an heir (remember that it takes three generations to create a workable dynasty and in 1461 he was a new king by dint of nothing more than a victory in battle and had the legitimate king in custody so his throne was extremely shaky). For the House of York, it was vital that he produce an heir as quickly as possible in order to get that dynasty started. Eleanor, like Elizabeth, was a widow but unlike Elizabeth, who already had two sons and was clearly fertile, Eleanor had produced no children for Sir Thomas Butler and none for Edward, so she would have been seen as barren. The family needed an heir and so Eleanor was bought off to keep quiet (and yes - there is plenty of surviving evidence for that).
Read 'Eleanor - The Secret Queen', by John Ashdown-Hill, who marshals together all the surviving evidence (and there is definitely enough to prove the case) to demonstrate that without doubt, Edward IV married Eleanor Butler in 1461.
@@nancybroertjes2292 Not then.. and a marriage contract then could be as little as a spoken promise..he had a marriage contract with Eleanor Butler and threw it aside for the Wydeville woman. He was quite rightly put aside in favour of Richard...others had just as much to gain by the princes disappearing...
Because he killed them.
I am so confused why would he think his brother would want him to kill his own nephews???
To become King himself.
Lady Margaret Beaufort had a better reason
@@lucieelizabethannwesson7016questions, is how???
@@catdairy367Because they would have caused trouble to her son Henry VII's rule
@@henryviii8808 That's a *why,* not a *how.* The question of how is more important. Neither Margaret nor any of her allies had access to the princes, who were kept safely deep inside the White Tower with express command of the king that no one should have access to them but the king and his few designated loyal servants.
Prayers 🙏 they are found safe and well after 540 years 😢
Pray for their safe recovery 😭
lmao
Have always loved the Plantagenets..Great family full of everything..Love..Hate..Greed..Jealousy..
Usually fantastic warriors..hard.. Just..and everything that a King should be in the Medieval Period.
Love this series..Thank you so much for it.
Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis is the first and only living direct descendant of Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford. Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford was the younger brother of King Edward IV. Redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis's older sister Katelyn's father, Neil Michael Davis did NOT father redhead ballet dancer Mackenzie Davis but Prince Edmund, Earl of Ruthford did despite being over 500 years old. 🎭🩰🎨th-cam.com/video/6-HrQW3uapg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/2lxZaTnQbwE/w-d-xo.html
Don't forget...king John , Edward ii Richard ii Henry vi....etc......all clearly bad kings
These programmes really being history to life. Fascinating.
Legally, Richard became protector the very second Edward died. The same way a person named as executor in a will becomes executor on the death of the testator .
Neither appointment required the approval of the council or a Court
I wholeheartedly love this I just wish the actor they used for Edward V look a bit closer to 12.
They found Richard 111s body under a Leicester car park, it gave a whole new meaning to long stay parking.
I wonder what he owes in parking fees. A Royal fortune?
3:53 couldn't focus on anything after the prince's nose got smooshed lmfao
Anybody else see a resemblance to Dave Grohl in Richard?
Yes!! That’s all I see lol!!
I knew he reminded me of some one !
I thought to myself this could have easily turned into a kick ass Foo Fighters video 😂
Haha Spot on!
I see Dustin Hoffman.
Thanx for your films. I'm teaching history. Your films are fantastic complementation of my lectures.
Not gonna lie, I got about 8 minutes into this and then started playing "The Rains Of Castamere" over the rest. :) Great documentary.
bruh ;-; srsly why do ppl kill eachother for power ;-; “For what good is it for someone to gain the world but lose their own soul”
In the game of thrones you win or you die.
@@shannond7437 But if England was a Christian country why did it not go by the bible?..
@@haruluvkyut More people have died for religion than literally anything else in our world history, including Christianity.
@@shannond7437 well..Cant fight that. But to be honest, No religion actually teaches harm. But human race somehow interpreted it to harm other people of different religions.
Some people already lost their soul
Lol, they got a 20 something year old playing a 12 year old prince. One with a receding hairline at that.
Too funny!
Dan Jones is easy in the eyes, and his voice is so dense and sumptuous. He does a wonderful job narrating.
Oh God, give us a break David! Hahahaha
Sure he looks good, until u listen to him spinning a purely fictional tale and presenting it as historical fact. That kind of dishonesty make him pretty ugly pretty quick to me. Who cares, if he has a sumptuous voice and does a wonderful job narrating, when hes lying to u?
Mrs. P! Drink some water 😂
This is fascinating! For one, I am a total Anglophile, but this period in England's history is especially interesting to me! Thank you very much for this eye opening video!
I've got the incurable disease of English History. Just in case you missed it, see "the king in the car park" , Phillipa Langley and John Ashdown-Hill absolutely nail the Richard the 3rd issue. (For one thing they found his bones) Ashdown-Hill was a magnificent historian, absolutely unparalleled. Enjoy your anglophilia!!
p.s., as british history videos go, that wasn't a very good one. now Lucy Worsley on the other hand.....
Hunter. Peale Love Lucy Worsley.
This 'documentary' relies far too heavily on Henry Tudor's propaganda. We know know far more about Edward's 1461 marriage to Eleanor Butler, widowed daughter of the late Sir John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury than we did a few years ago. The Tudors, who were usurpers, did everything they possibly could to try to discredit Richard. The whole 'descent into evil' narrative is entirely out of character with what we know of him.
The fact was that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and therefore his children were illegitimate. Buckingham's announcement of that fact was a damage limitation exercise after rumours had already begun to circulate. With Edward himself known to have been illegitimate (Cicely, Dowager Duchess of York announced it publicly after his death and it is confirmed by his baptismal record) the decision was clearly made that the princes would have to 'take one for the team' (to use a modern expression) to maintain the stability of the Yorkist hold on the kingdom, as the fact of the 1461 marriage had already got out
@Patricia Long, this "documentary" may be eye opening, but its pure fiction. I agree with Hunter. Peale and Crispvs1.
Dan Jones is one of my favorite historians and the Wars of the Roses high in my favorite periods of English history. No wonder GRRM drew on it so much for his fantasy novels. While there are some inaccurate points in this documentary and it could have benefitted with other leading expert commentary, it's nonetheless intriguing. As to the mystery of the two princes, even if Richard III had nothing to do with their ultimate fate (I personally subscribe to either Buckingham or Henry VII), he was an intelligent, politically savvy and yet dangerously ambitious man nevertheless. Even if he was not the psychopathic monster from Shakespeare's play-he eventually fell as all those vying for power do. I am intrigued to know if the skeletons long reputed to be those of the princes are truly them when the DNA testing is eventually done.
shame the royal family won't give permission for the bones to be tested.
Why is that?
I thought they never found the bones?
@@abbypengelly1432 there were 2 small skeletons found in the tower of london in the 1600s. It is widely believed that those belong to the 2 prince. Queen elizabeth won't let anyone test the skeletons, so we'll never know if those really are the remains of the 2 prince.
People are commenting about child actors but didn't they use the correct age actress to play the very young Elizabeth in this series?
Bet she's wearing makeup. And beautiful.
Margaret Beaufort (mother of the future king, Henry VII), and Richard III, both each had much to gain from the deaths of The Princes In The Tower.
I believe, weirdly enough, despite being on opposite sides, Margaret Beaufort & Richard (future Richard III) both conspired to kill The Princes. It clears the slate for Margaret (her son, Henry VII, would have two less royals to kill, after or before Richard), and gives Richard cause to assume the throne, since his two nephews (now dead) are the only legitimate heir’s to his brother King Edward VI (now dead), which then clears Richard’s accession to the throne as Richard III.
Actually, they were illegitimate, thanks to Edward's happy marriage to Elizabeth Woodville being bigamous (he married Eleanor Butler, widowed daughter of the late Sir John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury in 1461 and she was still very much alive when he married Elizabeth Woodville. It is only Tudor period propaganda which allows us to think Edward's sons were legitimate, as it gave the actual usurper, Henry Tudor the excuse to claim Richard (actually the legitimate heir to his brother Edward, due to Edward's marriage being invalid and his children therefore bastards) was a usurper. It is only this Tudor propaganda, along with the concerted effort of Henry VII to erase all evidence of Edward's first marriage, which allows us to think of Edward IV's son as Edward V. In reality he was never that and when Richard learned of the bigamous marriage (Clarence had almost certainly known but he had paid for that knowledge with his life) he acted quickly to stop his nephew being crowned, knowing full well that it would utterly discredit the Yorkist claim to the throne. In the absence of a legitimate son to follow him, Edward's legal heir was his brother Richard.
Edward 'V' was never really king at all and had no true right to be. It is only Henry VII's propaganda which allows him that courtesy, and specifically for the reason of artificially legitimising Henry VII's claim, which actually rested on nothing stronger than having won a single battle. Henry VIII made sure his son Edward would be crowned as Edward VI to re-enforce the myth, but the reality was that Henry VIII's son was actually Edward V, Queen Victoria's son should actually have been Edward VI and the Duke of Windsor should have been Edward VII before he selfishly abdicated.
Phillips Greogry's book the Red Queen implies this.
@@marianap.h3961 Phillipa Greogry is hated by historians for a very good reason.
@@psyche100 yeah. Too many liberties
Wow wow wow, what a history!! That's how you got it, not back in school! Also a big compliment to the actors, great!
Love these videos
I dont. This was my first and will be my last. I prefer my historical documentaries to be historical, not fiction.
I love history. I hate that the more I learn, the more I see parallels.
hmmmm that explains why cersei was blaming it on tyrion....
These are great documentaries! Are the acted out scenes from another series or were they created exclusively for this? It’s impressive!
In my defence: the woodvilles were being mean
Omg you're actually here
@@julijakublicka843 back again!!
🤭😂😂😂
Its good to get both sides of the story 😂
This is hilarious. Underrated comment!
Don’t forget, this history is told to us by the tudors and William Shakespeare. Henry VII could have done this after the death of Richard, the boys could have still been alive in the Tower! Could have been a Tudor cover up? The vIctors always write history.
Yes! The victorious always write history in such a way so their perspective & actions look justifiable.
I believe they have recently recovered two skeletons they believe to be the Princes.
@@debramoss2267 they were discovered in 1674, the princes in the tower. Many think Richard 1 had them Murdered, but it would have been just as convenient for Henry VII not to have them living.
@@Seds245 There's no definite proof that the bones discovered in the 17th century were the Princes, they disinterred them a while ago and thought one set of bones was a girl, and there were animal bones in there too. They could do a DNA test now but the Queen has consistently refused permission to exhume them again.
@@LadyFel001 what you say is very true
I don't think we will ever know the truth. However, sure Richard knew he would be seen as prime suspect?
Nothing was said about the possible swapping by Elizabeth of her younger child.Truth or rumour?
@@susanmccormick6022 I always thought this was a rumor.
Another fantastic video!
Who killed the Princes in the Tower? Please don’t tell me that Richard III did not murder the Princes.
Most likely, and it was also likely that Richard was behind the murder of Henry VI.
It seems to me that alot of England's problems could have been solved if people agreed to follow the dying king's will, just ike they generally agree to follow religious protection.
Having said that, Richard has gone crazy. I'm not sure he's as loyal as you guys say.
The people who have spoken of his loyalty were the people of his time, people who knew him or who had business with him, people who have read his correspondences with the king and others. It's not a matter of people today developing the new opinion that Richard was loyal. There's documentary evidence for that, and a great deal of it. Even his Tudor detractors wrote of it - his loyalty, his prowess as a soldier for his king, his piety, and his passion for justice for all, including the lowest classes. If even his enemies said that of him, shouldn't that mean something? That's one of many flies in the ointment of this story that he murdered his nephews, and on its own I think it's reason enough to revisit the case that he committed those murders. It makes no sense, and there's not one bit of evidence that they were even murdered, let alone by their uncle Richard. It didn't even clear his path to the throne. (There were three princes, not two, who were ahead of Richard, and one remained in Richard's care in luxury until Richard was killed. Henry VII was actually scared of this 3rd prince - Edward Plantagenet, son of George - so he imprisoned him, something Richard never did.) So why are we so married to Richard's "evil" nature and his guilt in the murder of his two nephews?
Dan Jones is an excellent presenter!
Just found out he was taught by David Starkey who, it's said, he considers his mentor.
Say no more! 🙌
He’s also written books on the Tudors.
Great video’s. Thank you.
Great video - if u like fiction.
Wait a damn second, lol, when they start a playing a soundtrack with the narrator talking about him being “theatrical to save the crown”. Was that not Indiana Jones soundtrack playing!
I personally think his paranoia was well-founded. I think he was caught up in an overthrow of power he didn’t realize until it was too late. His brother named him as Protector to try to spare his son what he fell victim to. I’ve always believed that Beaufort, Stanley, and Woodville were the real culprits. Edward IV had simply gotten in the way.
What did Edward 4 fall victim to?
Hope you’re off the drugs.
@@cplmpcocptcl6306 Alot of things the least of which was alcohol and having pre contracts of marriage before his union with Elizabeth Woodville.
I agree Elizabeth Woodville was outsmarted by the knaiving, manipulative and treasonous Margaret Beaufort. The boys were probably killed by Buckingham with the aquisesnse of Beaufort and Henry Vll. They had the most to lose and gain. Also Henry Vll had Buckingham executed not long afterwards. Lord Stanley is a prime suspect because he turned against Richard lll at Bosworth and he probably is guilty as well.
@@eac1235 When were the princes killed? We only know when they were kept away from the windows. We don't even know why. (For their protection?) And if the two princes were actually killed, why let the 3rd live? Because Edward of Warwick was still under attainder, but the Titulus Regius had to be reversed to make Henry's rule legitimate by his wife, Elizabeth Plantagenet. If she's legitimate, then Edward V and Richard of York are legitimate, and ahead of Henry in succession. Henry Tudor and his faction are the only ones who benefit by killing only two of the three young princes. (Henry actually needed Edward of Warwick alive to refute Lambert Simnel.) I think Richard would have protected his nephews with his life, regardless of their legitimacy. He had a long and spotless reputation as a good and decent human being, generous and forgiving to a fault - literally. We know what kind of tyrant Henry VII was.
@@beenaplumber8379 Exactly, I suspect Henry's scheming mother the "pious" Margaret Beaufort and Buckingham had their hands in the prince's "disappearance" most definitely! She had, from Henry's birth, planned for her only son to be king. She saw an opportunity and took it. And it worked. Margaret was very intelligent, educated and extremely ambitious, Even more-so than her son Henry Vii, I do not believe that with Richard III's in tact reputation as a loyal subject, descent human being and loving husband would he ever harm the boys. Anne Neville, his wife, however, had every reason to wish them dead, but I still believe that only Margaret had the nerve, contacts and deviousness to go through with it, thinking it "God's will" that her son be King. It's a true crime story where one must look at who had the most to gain. Motive, means and murderous profile. Margaret was a religious fanatic who thought she was a saint. She had a grandioss ego with legitimate rights to the throne, albeit through her son. Rumors were spread about Richard III's hand in the prince's deaths to undermine his reputation. To smear him and to point the finger at someone else ( pansy ) so no one would think to look in Margaret's direction. Very common in murder crimes, even today.
I really wish they would solve this cold case. We now have the means to do so, but they are STILL keeping the truth under wraps. The evidence is clear! But the truth would most probably put an end to the British Monarchy as we know it.
"In the game of thrones, you win or you die"
I think the videos are great by the way. I think it's far superior to other documentaries. I may disagree with a statement or two, but that doesn't mean the other 99% of it isn't really well done.
I absoultely love these, but can you put the full name and titles underneath the people in the show..? Lord Hastings tells me nothing... Thanks!!
Novi k There are much better historical accounts about the time like Sharon Penman’s The Sunne in Splendour or We Speak No Treason. However, like most apologists for Richard III the authors have to come up with some pretty wild theories to exonerate Richard III. After reading the Sunne in Splendour I was convinced of RIII’s innocence. Then I started reading non fiction works about the time, and now I think if the boys were murdered Richard III was responsible.
brontewcat That is nonsense that just doesn’t stack up. When Henry VII becomes king he denounces RIII for his “crimes” and lists them. There is NO mention of the princes’ deaths. Because they were still alive. Read The Daughter of Time for the best critical analysis of the period. Be in no doubt, Henry VII ordered their deaths.
Yeah, sure, they'll get RIGHT ON THAT. Or not. Do some research. It's not that hard.
brontewcat Oh yes because Sharon penman is the World Authority on English Mediaeval History...her being American. 🙄 A good book but no more factual than Gregory’s ... if you’re going to suggest books , might it not be better to suggest FACTUAL ones by Historians that KNOW What they’re talking about. ...?
Ballroomdiva I was not suggesting she was an authority. I was pointing out the better fictional accounts and theories fictional authors have come up with over recent times. Gregory is just one of a long line of authors who have come up with alternatives to Richard III. But Gregory is not the first one to suggest Margaret Beaufort. Most of the alternatives have come up in one way or another in non fiction accounts.
The LOVE Of History Always Keeps MY ❤️ Here. - Sir Antony Rivers Was An English Hero.
You really are trying to square circles here trying to make Richard III into some sort of angel
Thank you very much for sharing !❤
From the video;
“His (Richard’s) rule will never remain safe as long as his nephews are alive”
* Just the opposite. The nephews were hostages. Them being alive kept some of Richard’s opponents (his mother) from going to war against him. Once Richard killed the nephews, then all his enemies were unleashed upon him.
Nothing was more damaging to Richard than the disappearance of his nephews. If he had killed them, he would have had a doctor announce that one of the many diseases endemic to childhood killed them. The court would have gone into mourning, Masses would have been said for their souls and they would have been buried with all due circumstance, just as his brother did with the murder of Henry VI. Obviously HenryVII had no idea what happened to them, or he would not have been so freaked by Perkin Warbeck. He treated Lambert Simnel as a joke. Warbeck was tortured, his face bashed in and he was forced to read an absurd confession before being hanged, but his child survived.
@@nbenefiel You know who else scared Henry VII? Perkin Warbeck's fellow prisoner, Edward Plantagenet, son of Richard's older brother George, Duke of Clarence, and also ahead of Richard in the line of succession. Edward IV's sons needed Parliament to overturn Titulus Regius in order to reign, but for Edward Plantagenet, it was a simple matter of releasing him of his father's attainder. Why would anybody kill only two of the THREE princes who were nearer to the crown than Richard? Certainly Henry VII kept Edward P. imprisoned for the rest of his short life for this reason, but Richard never did. The Two Princes were closer than Edward P, so maybe Richard kept them under closer watch for their own safety. I think it's possible Richard had them spirited away for their own safety, with maybe a plan to bring them home after things had settled a bit, but then he died. While Edward P. was alive, Richard and his wife Queen Ann raised him in comfort, at Middleham Castle, then at Westminster Palace during his brief reign, I believe. Hardly the action of someone who was so afraid of his nephews overthrowing him.
That kid playing Edward as a child is in Rome'the tv series' as Octavian. Also he's 19....
I was wondering where I recognized him from
On a lighter note, his sister in the show was 10/10 attractive. No joke 💓
@@greyinglis7570 you talk like an old man.iac who stares at young people.
@@Letizia2810 ...So like a talent show Judge? Are you trying to say i'm Simon Cowell?
OH this is a decade old then at least
So King Richard gets dug up below a concrete carpark centuries later. No one apparently cared about his grave. That speaks volumes.
WHY are you presenting a well-researched and important story like this in your UNDERSHIRT?!?
Good Lord Richard needed to protect his brother's son. That was a huge mistake, I am surprised he didn't think his actions would damn his soul.
I don't believe it was him. That's too obvious and he was too perfect of a scapegoat.
@@Moonewitch it was most probably him
There are a handful of likely suspects, Richard among them. But I agree with moonewitch, hes just too perfect of a scapegoat. Remember almost all the written material about this was written 50-100 years later. When smearing Richard came in real handy. And 1 of the things speaking against it being Richard is, that the disappearance of the princes made things very difficult for him. And why kill the princes? He didnt need to, they had been declared bastards and as such were ineligible to claim the throne and no threat to him. Richard was the 3rd son, the 2nd son, Richards older brother the Duke of Clarence, had a son, the Earl of Warwick, but Clarence had been attainted for treason against Edward IV, and as such both he and his son, Warwick, were ineligible to claim the throne, and Warwick was hence no threat to Richard. And Richard let Warwick live. It was, in fact, Henry VII, who executed Warwick, after he killed Richard at Bosworth and claimed the throne and was quite thorough in securing his claim. So both Warwick and the 2 princes were ineligible, yet Richard killed the princes but let Warwick live? Doesnt make sense.
And in any case, this is 1 of the most dishonest "documentaries", Ive ever seen on the subject. Its just a theory, almost entirely fictional, based only on a few known dates and names. It would be fine to put forward as a theory, if he called it a theory and went through all the circumstantial evidence for AND against, but he doesnt. He simply cherrypicked the few facts useful for his narrative and desired conclusion, ignored all else, spun a story with no evidence to back it, and then presented it as historical fact.
@@elhombredeoro955 Pay no mind to Revisionist. He is guilty as sin.
JD Barr been communing with the spirit world have we...? Pray do tell how you know this...!!!!
Is it just me or does anyone else wonder if Richard had anything to do with his brother, King Edward’s death? I believe the moment Edward told him he was to bebthe protector, Richard began to plot Edward’s death. Evil was already in him, greed brought it to the surface.
It does seem like E4 died very suddenly
The two princes who were taken to the London tower and never seen again so sad I just watched a show on this the other day
What brand are his jackets? They're awesome
I have researched the Plantagenet dynasty and in particular the reign of Edward IV & the aftermath there of. I truly believe Margret Beaufort and her husband, Lord Thomas Stanley, had a hand in the death of the princes in the tower. He was sherif of the Tower of London, so could come and go as he pleased. She had an unshakable belief her son was destined to be king, and she loathed the Yorkists. Together they were a powerful, wealthy and formidable duo. Plus, as an mother knows, we will move heaven and earth for our children.
Is this from those novels and that Starz show? Because that's straight out of there...
You have to remember as well Lord Thomas Stanley was very loyal to Richard at this point (during the keeping of the young Princes), that's why he was appointed that position. It took up until the 'last moment' during the Battle of Bosworth Field for him and his brother to finally side with Henry Tudor, his own step son. If anything, I could believe it better that he had a hand on the murders based on the order of Richard III, rather than the order of his wife.
@@tracys169 it was MAGARET right from the start.
But why would Richard do all the other stuff then?
Caroline Araujo several reasons. The nobility and Richard himself, were hugely suspicious of the Woodville’s and what they saw as them wanting to ‘freeze out’ the rest of the late kings council. There was also a massive rumour mill at court; their were multiple factions who believed in every aspect of scandal.
I also believe, up to a point, he started on a negative path and became powerless against to stop events.
Quite entertaining, but has a common problem when it comes to historical mysteries - instead of following the evidence, whereever it may lead, he starts out with a conviction of, what happened, and sets out to prove it, cherrypicking and highlighted anything that fits his narrative and disregarding anything that doesnt. Its investigative malpractice so often seen, whether its the Princes in the Tower, the death of Richard II or the identity of Jack the Ripper. He picks a handful of the few known facts, and then he builds an entire story around it based on speculation and just pure guesswork to reach his desired conclusion. Worst of all, he presents this story as fact despite having zero evidence for it. While it was 45 min of entertainment, I cannot take such "documentaries" any more serious than a Hollywood movie.
The honest documentary would account for known information, state circumstantial evidence for and against Richard being the culprit as well as other suspects. Im fine with laying out this story as a theory, but it should be just 1 theory among other equally likely theories, and it should contain ALL known information for and against, and he should clearly state, when he is hypothesising and cannot prove it. Hell, there is not even any evidence, that the princes died in that tower. It is highly likely, that they did, but there is no proof. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, that points to Richard, but there is no proof. And there is also a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Richard NOT killing the princes, which is completely ignored in this fictional tale.
I really need to stop watching these "documentaries", the dishonesty in inventing the preferred history and claiming it as fact just pisses me off.
I agree.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
I think official history of the world has been distorted beyond recognition. When it comes to knowing genuine history, we are in the dark. I do not trust official history sources. I believe it to be a fabrication, a mixture of semi-truths and fiction. Powerful people can easily forge/tamper with the written word, and history is written by the victors, who will surely write history in whichever way it’s convenient for them. We’re taught that official history is based on scientific study, and verified by experts, but, as you start re-examining each separate part of official history, you start to realise that its full of holes & contradictions. As you start to question the so-called evidence that they base official history on, you realise that it’s very weak form of evidence. When they use historical written sources as evidence for their official history, you will often find that those sources are not genuine/authentic originals, but always copies of copies. During the time when the old world order was being turned over, and taken over by the new world order, there was a global campaign to destroy the evidence of the old world order. During that time they were burning entire libraries around the world, destroying books, artefacts, art works, and even entire historical buildings.
I totally agree with you. It's many years since I have read anything about these people, but as far as I remember the Woodvilles was a very greedy family and they got what they wanted. So I am wondering why Edward would make his brother protector, if it was because he knew they would try to grab power and maybe even do what Richard did and make themselves even richer and more powerful. They didn't follow the kings wishes so I think Richard was in his right to do what he did. I just remember when I read about them I really disliked them. I also think Richard may not have killed the boys, but instead it was the mother of Henry th 7th, but we will never know all we can do is guess. Didn't they find the bones of 2 small boys on a staircase in the tower?
If you think this documentary is bad, then have you seen the White Princess on HBO? It's about Henry the 7th and Elizabeth, and the only thing that is historical are their names. They have Lizzie as they call her be in love with Richard III and having had sex with him and her mother has replaced her younger son with a peasant boy, so he wasn't really killed in the tower. It is just crazy. All these historical series HBO makes like the Spanish Princess (Kathrine of Aragon), Mary Queen of Scots and another one called the White Queen. They make these women all the same type of women real Zena types, that always saves the day and they are clever, cunning and brave and then you look at a real portrait of them and you see these women who are mousy compared to these beautiful actors. IT's the same with Vikings, they are dressed as if they really wanted to do Game of Thrones, having vikings in leather and with shaved heads. Vikings were known to love and care for their hair and wore colorful clothing. I just feel disappointed when I sit there with my cup of tea and bag of nuts and look forward to some history and that is what I get. Young people will watch this crap and think that is how it was, with lots of steaming sex;)
@@MissWitchiepoo aren't all of the examples that you named genreed as historical fiction and not considered documentaries at all. Like some of them (The White Queen and Spanish Princess) are based on historical fiction books by Phillippa Gregory. Vikings is also based on mythologized history (as it has been millenia since the source events). Let entertainment be entertainment.
I love the Wars of the Roses because it's not just about history, it's deep study of human nature, psychology in fact. What makes people compelled to do what they do. The more I learn about each of them, the more I find they are equally likable and unlikable at the same time. As much as you can detest Richard iii for what he did - he lived an honorable life for 30 years, faithful to his wife, loyal to the King, good son and father. Then the last 2 years of his life, especially the 13 weeks after the King's death, he totally goes off the rails. He died a noble death, fighting as a brave warrior would. But I wondered in the end, when he could have retreated, he chose to die on the battlefield because he had nothing much to live for - his wife and son died earlier. How much was he affected by their loss and the fact he was in mourning made him even more irrational. Did he enjoy the power of being King, or did the burden of constantly being paranoid and lonely made him so miserable, he longed to check out.
Interesting and insightful comment and not one id thought of. Thank you! And yes, I cannot honestly imagine being in his position! Crazy!
Good video, but the premise that Richard wasn't just a cartoon villain but instead had reasons for what he did and felt that he was justified is pretty obvious and applies for basically every monster of human history. Most people have at some point wanted something that wasn't theirs, they just aren't as willing to step over so many legal/moral lines to get there or don't have the power and opportunity to act on it.
Some of the most violent actions have risen from "the people in power oppressed me and/or my people, so now I deserve revenge" (see 1940s Germany/most genocidal revolutions).
Sometimes it is "I have the right to this, so it doesn't matter what rights of others I have to crush to get what is mine" (see slavery, infanticide and abuse excuses).
Sometimes it is "I know what is best for me and mine, whether that's my family or even my country or the planet, so my actions are for the greater good, meaning that breaking some rules to gain more power/money is acceptable" (see all long-term politicians and to some extent basically every single human being at some point).
I think that was the wrong premise. I think he should have started with a blank slate and presented the case against Richard. There is none. There is a record of rumors (only one contemporary, published by Mancini) and speculation. There is no evidence the princes were murdered, or even died, let alone any evidence that points the finger at Richard. People connect the dots as they like, but they always ignore the exonerating evidence, like the care Richard showed for the THIRD prince who stood between him and the crown, Edward Plantagenet. Why would Richard kill only two and not the 3rd if his motive was to clear his way to the crown? I see no evidence that a murder ever took place, or that the Two Princes even died before old age, in the Tower or elsewhere. He should have started from there and followed the evidence. But then it would have been a very short program.
This Royal drama has some similarities with the Saudi kingdom drama now
"despite beginning with good intentions..."
Did this documentary, rngaging as it was, actually make anybody feel like that was true, though?
(Nope.)
Even with the narrator suggesting that Richard was just carrying out Edward IV’s wishes and doing what was good for the kingdom, I still don’t see it. Richard III was a power hungry leech and deserved what he got from Henry VII
Agreed. I hear the story then something stating it isn’t what it appears to be… then more crazy self serving behavior then… no, he was protecting… huh? I don’t see that at all.
That always bothered me.. great documentary.
This episode is poorly argued. It begins with the thesis that young Princes simply had to die, but follows that up with a demonstration of what it proposed to dismiss: Richard's ruthlessness and unwillingness to compromise with those who stood in his way. The House of York crumbled due to specific decisions Richard made - few of which were inevitable or even necessary. Richard was paranoid and painted himself into a corner - that's why the Princes died.
Richard secretly killing his nephews makes no sense. The only benefit to him would be if their deaths were made public.the mystery harmed him.
@@nbenefiel That's why I think it's possible that Richard sent the princes away somewhere safe. Everybody with a claim to the throne wanted them dead, but to the Woodvilles they were tools for their return to power. Sending them away secretly would mean the Woodvilles would still assume they were in the Tower, and they wouldn't go looking for them. And as long as the whereabouts of the Two Princes were unknown to the public, there was little reason for anyone to risk everything to come after Prince Edward Plantagenet, who was relatively safe in Westminster Palace.
Prince Edward is played by a young man, not a 12-year-old boy … the dramatization suffers.
I guess this came out before they found him. “Slight curve”
Richard is about as subtle as a brick thrown through a window
Their bodies were found in the reign of Charles II, they were found buried under stones in a staircase in the Tower, when some demolition work was being carried out. Their remains are in a minster Abbey.
Correction,two bodies found but no proof of who they were.
@@susanmccormick6022 not true they were compared to relatives which showed dental familiarity. Read Alison Weir's book on Princes in the Tower, she has all the information there
@@hl6876 One book I still have to read & thanks for info.Sad news though.
@@susanmccormick6022 I agree
The bodies are in an urn in Westminster Abbey.
Their bodies were never found with certain IDs so you can't really say they were murdered. Even if it's likely R3 done them in..
I can't see how his actions - albeit with good intentions - don't make Richard III. an absolutely detestable villain.
Thank you, that was so interesting.....what an amazing tale .
They should make a series about medieval Britain. It just could be the next Game Of Thrones.
Game of Thrones is the War of the Roses just a fantasy version.
@@rankoorovic7904 just what I've been thinking! ^^
But...no dragons,though..and they have made many
I think so too. So far every time they try to make one its alway historically innacuarate with made up soap opera
Thought this was a different video. It's the exact same video in Timeline Channel. Is this a re-upload or what? Found nothing in the description..
They just steal content