Really Bad History: The latest Richard III Conspiracy 

Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.

Henry Tudor: "I plan to build a car park in Leicester." Richard III: "Over my dead body,"

The Daughter of Time is a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey, concerning a modern police officer's investigation into the alleged crimes of King Richard III of England. It was the last book Tey published in her lifetime, shortly before her death. In 1990 it was voted number one in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list compiled by the British Crime Writers' Association. In 1995 it was voted number four in The Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list compiled by the Mystery Writers of America.

I can see David Starkey rolling his eyes at the latest documentary

If I could add some constructive criticism, the team editing David’s videos should add some visual cues when he’s talking about something we should be looking at as it would help to illustrate the point he’s making better.

Hmmm! Whatever anyone says Philippa Langley found Richard’s buried body when all sorts of experts thought it impossible.

I didn't like history until my sister gave me one of your books. You made history come alive.

Thank God. Brain food at last. Happy New Year Dr Starkey.

A couple things about Richard III. "I liked never the conditions of any prince so well as his; God hath sent him to us for the weal of us all..." - Thomas Langton, Bishop of St Davids. "By contrast with kings before and after him, he indulged in no financial extortion, no religious persecution, no violation of sanctuary, no burning at the stake, no killing of women, no torture or starvation, and no cynical breach of promise, pardon or safe-conduct in order to entrap a subject." - Richard III The Maligned King by Annette Carson. "On hearing the news of Edward's death at Nottingham, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief." "He showed his grief and displeasure and was not glad of the death of his queen, but as sorry and in heart as heavy as a man might be." "Never has so much spirit or greater virtue reigned in such a small boy. As far as we can judge, Richard fulfilled his obligations and more, and for a medieval prince that was remarkable." He wasn't the evil hunchbacked child murderer the Tudors and Shakespeare made people view him as... Richard would've brought great changes to England such as more power to common people, better laws etc.

Absolutely fascinating. As soon as I heard about this story, I knew that Dr Starkey would mercilessly dissect it.

we all know in fact that Edward V married an American actress and went to live in the New World.. where he became a chief impact officer

I'm just glad Richard's bones were found ( with the DNA from Michael Ibsen) and at last a good warrior King was laid to rest properly in the correct manner.

Starkey's "bad history" hasn't aged well based on him taking the piss out of Phillipa Langley both finding Richard III and now her recent documentary dispelling the killing of the two young Princes in the Tower. Must be hard to swallow for Starkey and his ilk for just belting out the status quo for decades without ever considering to challenge it. Embarrassed for him and he should publicly apologise to Phillipa.

Priceless beginning to your talk! Thank you so much for putting things in context so eloquently.

Sadly these days in any contest at The Telegraph between journalism and clickbait the latter always triumphs.

I read this yesterday in the Telegraph at breakfast. After a burst of laughter, I did consider leaving a comment, but decided, it wasn't worth my time. I expect it is due to a lack of real news, that the Telegraph decided to print such garbage. I am sure David Starkey will reply to it far better than I could. What happened to hard evidence? Blown away in the Covid wind I expect.

I would have thought anyone with a brain, never mind someone who knew anything about late medieval history, would put together that it would make no sense for Edward to be allowed to live out his life away from court in Devon but still be permitted to decorate his tomb in such a way that would point to his true origin. He’s dead at that point. Why not just write “Here lies Edward V,” and be done with it? Why do this needless puzzle solving exercise? Logically, it just makes no sense, and for historians who should really know better, it’s just an embarrassment.

Thank you David Starkey. I wish you had been my history teacher. I had a bad education in the 1970's as I am dislecix and only became interested in history in the 1990's when I started working in a care home, talking to older people about world war 2. Thank you again.

Thank you Dr Starkey. How I wish I could remember half that of which you so eloquently inform us. Always fascinating and intriguing.

The idea of Edward living in exile is ludicrous. This was no Edgar Ætheling/William the Conqueror scenario. Richard's enemies would have swarmed to him to use as a pretense for war. Richard would have certainly been aware of that possibility. Sadly, Edward likely wouldn't have survived the ascension of the Tudors, either.

I saw the article and thought that even if Richard HAD allowed family sentiment to get the better of his instincts and packed his nephew off to darkest Devon, it would have been highly unlikely that Henry VII would have allowed that circumstance to endure once he had assumed the crown, given Edward's more obvious claim to it..

Coffee and a new Dr. Starkey video, what a grand way to start my day!

Your videos are amazing! I so look forward to each one. Thank you!

Thank you David, best wishes for the the coming new year.

Contemporary accounts aside, everything Elizabeth Woodville did after her sons were taken to the Tower indicated that she believed they were both dead.

I really enjoy Mr. Starkey's talks. As an American, I have no skin in the game regarding Richard III, the Princes in the Tower, as compelling as they are. I'm of the mind that Richard killed his nephews to remove any threat to his reign - Occam's Razor. The rumors of their deaths started in 1483. If they were alive, why didn't he publicly parade them to show they were still around? If they were killed, why didn't he open an inquiry? The other thing that I find interesting is apparently he tried to have Edward and Elizabeth's marriage annulled by Parliament. I thought marriages were annulled by ecclesial courts at that time. Why did he attempt to bypass that? The way some women defend Richard reminds me of those women who write to serial killers in prison, and eventually marry them. I don't see men doing that.

I am so glad you have this channel David. You are awesome!

Thank you very much Mr Starkey, Wishing you "A Very Happy New Year!"🥂🍾

Very interesting David , thank you . A very Happy New Year to you.

Thank you David Starkey for cutting through the bologna and telling the correct history

Love your history talks , simply great

Great to hear from you again. I miss our chats at the old Falcoville. Best, Peter.

I recall one of those 50s movies where the followers of a Welsh football club playing in one of your cups pulled into a station in London. A lady's voice came over the loudspeaker saying "Will a Mr. Evans report to the information kiosk" (or something like that), and the entire trainload of passengers rushed the kiosk.

R3 Revisionists pre-unearthing: “He was MALIGNED! It’s all lies! He didn’t even have a hunchback!” **Skeleton unearthed showing extreme scoliosis** “It’s him! You can tell by the hunchback!!!”

David, I hope you had a lovely Christmas and I wish you a happy new year. Your video arriving in this twixmas zone is just the perfect tonic xXx thank you

Love this guy, no one makes history so compelling and engaging

Just shows how poor history is portrayed these days- and the ‘cancelled’ Prof Starkey is left to put things right from the sidelines. I’m sure some of these modern day ‘historians’ don’t even have a GCSE in history, and if so, have only todays ‘sanitised’ versions.

As usual, the actual history is more interesting and a better story than the made-up stories. Someone like John Evans is the real stuff of history, the person on the edge of interesting events--picking a side and hoping it wins, and riding out the losses when they don't.

Did he just say the idea of Richard not murdering the princes was silly? If so, David's my new hero, I've never heard a historian say that before, but always beleived it.

I had to watch this after seeing the Philippa Langley "documentary" about the Princes. I was surprised to see she calls herself a historian when a google search does not indicate that. I thought she was a writer not a historian. I, myself am not a historian but I do read. As an untrained person I found many flaws in the program and I cannot wait to see if you can provide a program on that documentary of bad history.

What amused me about Ms Langley was she spent her whole career in the 'defence' of RIII as 'not a hunch back' and as soon as the (admittedly sterling work she did in locating RIII's body) archaeologists discovered a skeleton with its major deformed spine she immediately gasped "aahh, ... it's Richard!".

Brilliant, thank you so much for this. My personal favourite bit was explaining the abbreviation of the letter 'n', I've seen that many times on heraldic shields and had no idea what it represented.

You sir are a breath of fresh air in this dumbed down frivolous society.

Ever since the 6th grade Starkey has been a historian whom I have held great admiration for, he truly knows how to delve deep into the periods he examines with such passion and introspection that draws you in. Richard III in contrast to the propaganda and fictional representations in reality was by no means a power-grasping psychopath. Yet for dynastic reasons, would have had a motive to eliminate his "illegitimate" nephews if the Archer of Rouen theory was catalyst for it. There's always the possibility Henry VII could have been the perpetrator (if not Buckingham). Plus there is James Tyrel's "confession " of acting on Richard's orders, which Thomas Moore drew on for his own writings about king Richard. Still, I find Starkey's examination of this conspiracy nonetheless insightful and well researched based on what is known, fragmentary and speculative the evidence is. Moreover, a new reexamination of the alleged skeletons of the "princes" I am really eager to know the truth behind, even if they do not answer all the longstanding questions that have loomed over the mystery and remain shadowy.

David, do you doubt the whole story of the way Richard 111 body was found? I thought I detected a hint of something in your tone and now I'm fascinated...😲!!!!!!

Common sense and educated commentary, long live Dr David Starkey

have a wonderful 2022 . thankyou

Thankyou so much David I really enjoy listening to you

In the Leicester car park Richard III's body was found under the R for Reserved (parking space).

Very much enjoyed this detailed video. Thankyou

Enjoyable, very much so, and informative. Thank you.

Shield is misspelled "shied" twice. If the "newspaper" can't afford a copyeditor, we can't expect much in the way of historical accuracy.

As I am an avid photographer of churches and Devonian history, thank you Dr Starkey. I will be visiting next weekend.

Mr Starkey, please have a glass of good wine and relax or your blood pressure will go through the roof, and we can't have that as we need your expertise for future debunking.

Thank you so much for this superb lecture!

I love your lesson in history Mr Starkey. Thank you so much. :)

Really good. Perfect piece to watch in New Year’s day.

Always a pleasure! TYVM!

It is never too late to learn especially now that I have found the best lecturer in history. David Starkey delivers much more than "packets of dates". Thankyou.

What fascinated me most in Phillipa Langley’s book was the opinions of the forensic anthropologists who examined the 1930’s skeletons in Westminster photos. I have degrees in Mediaeval history and anthropology ( it’s important to be unemployable in more than one field), I know that it is relatively easy to differentiate between male and female skeletons. The anthropologists determined one of the skeletons was female. Ergo, they aren’t the princes.

Always so grateful to be able to hear Dr. Starkey!

Thankyou Dr. Starkey, I enjoyed this with a nice glass of Shiraz and home made cookies. I posted a link to this in the comments to the Telegraph piece so that other readers of the telegraph can see this. Please keep up the good work, I love the RU-vid posts, just you speaking to camera, someone who knows and loves their subject. Keep up the good work.

Brilliant analysis! Thank you!

The point about the 'n' is well noted. Even in the early modern period shorthand was widely used on the "minnims" that is letters like m, n, i, u, especially when they appear together (as they often do).

Some sensible talk. Thankyou David.

I'd love if you could show pictures but won't stop me from listening to all your fabulous works! I'm going to go find pictures of Evans' tomb.

I'm SO glad you have covered this. I thought it was just me.

Superb critique! Such a joy to listen Dr. Starky, a man of brilliance shining out above a mire of mediocrity

Something that everyone forgets about is that the first documented occasion of the English “sweating sickness” is the autumn of Henry VII’s ascension to the throne, in London. However, one of the reasons that was given by Lord Stanley for not quickly joining the fight at Bosworth is that he was ill with “the sweating sickness”, so we know that it was circulating before Bosworth. If Edward died of the sweating sickness while under Richard’s care, no one is going to believe that he was not poisoned (or otherwise killed) by Richard. So it makes sense for Richard not to publicize the death. If Edward died of the sweating sickness, then it makes sense for Elizabeth to leave the abbey & to trust Richard with her daughters. And, if Edward died from the sweating sickness, it makes sense that no official (or quasi-official) source accuses him of killing the princes until a generation has passed and there would be few people who might have known otherwise. And that’s the big hurdle for the “Richard killed them” crowd. There was one account of a rumour that he might have been killed, but no history was written that made the claim until decades later. Why? The other option that also addresses all of the problems with both the “Richard is guilty” and the “Richard is innocent” hypotheses (noted above, and also mentioned by other commenters below), is that Edward committed suicide. Again, who would believe Richard hadn’t killed him, and if it became public knowledge that the prince killed himself, that would have the potential effect of reinforcing the already existing taint of insanity that plagued the Plantagenets. And if the Plantagenets had “tainted blood”, then would the Tudor bloodline be tainted with madness as well (speaking from a medieval perspective of course)? Again, the best course of action for Henry VII is to simply try to ignore the issue for as long as possible, and then to blame everything on one evil scapegoat. I feel that these are the two best explanations for what happened to Edward, simply because they, alone among the many theories, don’t require people who were known to be intelligent to make multiple incredibly stupid decisions.

This is what happens when people treat history like a crossword puzzle..... it isnt....

David - I just started watching the videos recently but I find them very compelling. You bring these topics to life. Do you have a video on the topic of Henry VII ?

I love Starkeys talks. Reminds me of my professors from days gone by; knowledgeable but an absolute dinosaur socially and culturally.

I like your summing up - 'An imaginative coincidence'.

Great stuff!

I have enormous respect for this wonderful man...and I love his sense of humour.

What a pleasure it is to listen to you. Your catalonian fan.

David is just brilliant! X

So thankful we have this excellent channel to turn to for clear headed, academic fact rather than romantic flights of fancy.

😊😊 most certainly enjoyed it! Thank you

I'm an American who has long been a student of Britain's historical monarchy. I'm familiar with the Princes in the Tower story. Like so many others, I took the story to be accurate, especially with the discovery of the two children's remains some two hundred years later. Having seen the Philippa Langley documentary, I have to say it had all the earmarks of a sensationalized piece of TV journalism up to and including the way the barrister delivered his tantalizing conclusions by first making us think he was shooting Philippa down only to "admit" he was wrong. Meanwhile, is anyone asking the obvious question? Why haven't the children's skeletal remains now entombed in Westminster Abbey been DNA tested? Wouldn't that settle the question for once and for all?

I read the article after watching this, and to be honest, I thought to myself, would medieval people even have the mindset to leave 'da vinci ' style clues. Of course, common sense prevails. I think Ms Langley wants so badly for her hero to be vindicated that she will see things that are not there. I think the fact that the church 'in the middle of nowhere ' decked out in Yorkist regalia is simply because it is on Thomas Grey"s land, that's it. Maybe he just wanted to build a shrine to his lost brother. If they sent one brother to exile, why not the other? I noticed in all of their giddy excitement, they forget to mention what happened to Richard, his brother.Does that mean that the two men responsible for their murder were misquoted? Wasn't it James Tyrill? Didn't he make a 'death bed' confession that even Thomas More wrote about? It may be an unpopular opinion, but I think it should be a case now of finding out the identity of the skeletons in the grave Charles II created for the Princes/ skeletons that were found. We need to know, again, I may be out of turn or sound offensive and I don't mean to be, but I think part of the reason that our late Queen, God rest her soul, didn't want their identity confirmed is because it would bring up the whole debate of succession...it just would. There's a chance she may have just wanted to leave them at peace. However, I believe there is another reason. As far as this article and as far as the Richard III society goes? I think they mean well, but they need to stop looking for things that are not there. If you have to look for 'clues' a king left behind, he wasn't a king to start with. Ms. Langley has got a hero complex for Richard that a lot of us don't, and while she may think she knows his mind and what he did or didn't do, the sources say otherwise.

That chap buried in Windsor - Oliver King - a little suspicious, no? I cracked that code, and I'm off to write the novel!

I find it troubling that Langley is so strongly linked with the discovery of Richard III body. There was and still is a huge stone in situ denoting Greyfriars as the site of Richard's burial. She found what was not lost!!!

David Starkey. A treasure of the nation ! Thank you.

I'm happy to have watched lots of these videos on Dr. Starkey's new You Tube channel. TV's loss is their gain. As far as this one is concerned, what can I say except that this isn't just any old takedown, it's a David Starkey takedown. A slap in the face of those who prioritise emotion and narrative over cold hard logic. Delightful.

Huzza again Dr Starkey! I’ve also only just learned the word Twixmas and what it means.

Reforming history is very popular in modern media and academia. It allows those that want to push politics lots of flexibility.

A brilliant debunking of the possibility of Edward V living a quiet life in Devon in the 15th-16th Century. One thing I learned from it was that Margaret Countess of Salisbury and other Yorkists were killed not because they were Yorkists but because they opposed the Reformation. It makes a great deal of sense the more I think about it as King Henry VIII was the son of a Yorkist mother and previous kings from Edward IV to Richard III had married members of the Lancastrian house in order to bring the Wars of the Roses to a peaceful end. So thank you Dr Starkey for enlightening me regarding this

Henry viii must have realised there was great value in promoting the House of York. Elizabeth of York had a much stronger claim to the throne than Henry vii.

Thank you so much……… you explain so much. However people often cling to the, what if, the possibilities. Perhaps it is human to want to rewrite history. We need to always take account of facts and what is definitely known, you set this out for us so brilliantly.

I have enjoyed it. Many things I have not agreed with you in the past, but that is the same with most of us probably. Your views about history I take it seriously and I welcome. Your talk on this subject has been illuminating to me and I thank you.

I just watched the BBC special from Phillipa Langley about this the other night and couldn’t stop rolling my eyes with the bad assumptions and poor research.

I don't mind new theories to test ideas as long as they can be peer reviewed. The evidence has to stand up to rigorous scrutiny, before it can be accepted. I doubt this latest one meets the test...

The difference between an actual Medievalist & enthusiastic amateurs is apparent here. (Those "deer" look more like giraffes to me - maybe it's the tomb of Tarzan, King of the Jungle!).

Oh joy! A thorough debunking of some of the shoddiest historical investigation I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. Thank you, Mr Starkey. Much appreciated.

Subbed!! Great talk. Watching the documentary on the King in the carpark, I was quite shocked when they actually found Richard III. As good as it was to find him and lay him to rest again, and somewhat rehabilitate his reputation, to me there was the risk of it enabling Phillipa Gregory to start believing her own nmore out there nonsense. I have to admit, the Plantagenets are my favourite part of English history. Things seem a tad more simple and easy to follow in their time. Once you're into the Tudor period it is a slow journey into a distinctly more modern world where htings like ministers and policy start to creep into the record.

Whatever we may think of Philippa Langley after the evidence was presented to Judge Rinder he agreed with the findings that the two brothers had not been murdered in the tower. Etc etc. Even David Starkey is not infallible.

I have it on good authority that Edward V actually escaped to Argentina with Adolf Hitler and Lord Lucan and is currently living there under an assumed name.

I wonder if Evans served Sir Richard Grey, Dorset's brother while he was at Ludlow? That might be how he got in with Dorset?

Utterly pathetic isn't it? Even an averagely-educated person ought to be able to recognize what ermine looks like.