The Princes in the Tower | Murdered or Survived?

Подписаться 131 тыс.

Просмотров 250 тыс.

50% 1

The mystery of the Princes in the Tower. Will we ever know what happened to Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York? The princes, who were 12 and 9 years old at the time of their disappearance, were taken into custody at the Tower of London by their uncle, the future Richard III, after the sudden death of their father King Edward IV. The boys disappeared from the Tower in the autumn of 1483. Speculation over their fate remains to this day and many questions remain unanswered. Murdered or survived? What do you think?
Storyteller: Chantelle Hooley
www.hrp.org.uk...
/ toweroflondon
/ historicroyalpalaces
/ toweroflondon
Director: Matt Oliver
Producers: Matt Oliver / Nadja Noel
Music: Will Stapleton
Film Editor: Matt Oliver
Image credits in order of appearance.
Edward IV, British School, 16th Century. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2019.
Elizabeth Woodville, Attributed to the British School, 16th Century. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2019.
The Princes in the Tower by John Everett Millais, 1878. © Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Woodville Family (detail of Lord Rivers), English School (15th century). © Lambeth Palace Library, MS 265 f. Viv.
Richard III, c.1510-40 (oil on panel), English School, (16th century). © Society of Antiquaries of London, UK / Bridgeman Images.
The Coronation Procession of Anne Boleyn to Westminster Abbey 1st June 1533 London England UK. 19th century Victorian engraving circa 1878 , © f8 archive / Alamy Stock Photo.
Canterbury stained glass window images featuring: Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville, the Princes and their daughters. Reproduced courtesy of the Chapter, Canterbury Cathedral.
King Henry VII, unknown artist, 1505, England, UK, Europe. © Peter Barritt / Alamy Stock Photo.
Elizabeth of York (1465-1503) c.1470-98, British School (16th Century). Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2019.
Richard III (1955), dir. by Laurence Olivier. © Park Circus.
An historic print showing Croyland (Crowland) church and abbey. © Colin Waters / Alamy Stock Photo.
The Usurpation of Richard III by Dominic Mancini. © Bibliothèque municipale de Lille, Ms GOD 22.
Polydore Vergil, c. 1470 to 1555. Italian historian. From Crabbes Historical Dictionary published 1825. © Classic Image / Alamy Stock Photo.
The works of Sir Thomas More Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chauncellour of England, wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge. © The British Library Board, G.2423.
Richard III, British School, 16th Century. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2019.
Sir Thomas More and Family by Rowland Lockey (the first seven figures, left-to-right, after Hans Holbein the Younger). , © Granger Historical Picture Archive / Alamy Stock Photo.
Sir Thomas More, English lawyer, social philosopher, author and statesman. © GL Archive / Alamy Stock Photo.
Laurence Olivier in Richard III (1955). © AF archive / Alamy Stock Photo.
Anthony Sher in Richard III (RSC, 1984). © Zuleika Henry
Sir Ian McKellen in Richard IIII (1995). © Allstar Picture Library / Alamy Stock Photo.
The Princes in the Tower, After Paul Delaroche (1797-1856). © Historic Royal Palaces.
Murder of the Princes in the Tower by James Northcote (1746-1831). © World History Archive / Alamy Stock Photo.
Possible remains of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

Опубликовано:

29 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 1 тыс.

@CailynMorningstar 5 лет назад

I hope someday they'll let them run DNA tests on the remains so we may finally get an answer. It's weird though that they keep refusing.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

Not really. Would you want your ancestors dug up to satisfy curiosity, when there is really not much to gain by it?

@aliciarichards6634 5 лет назад

M Scott but so many royals have been dug up throughout the ages, take Richard III for example. I think that this particular case is one which needs clearing up once and for all. Just think, if the bones are tested and do turn out to be the Princes, it will put to rest any rumours that they survived and will basically solve this mystery once and for all. If they aren't the Princes, so what? I don't see what harm would be caused by opening up that urn. I just don't think the argument of 'disturbing the dead' is strong enough in this case, it's an historical crime that needs to be solved, such as the case of the Romanov family and their remains. I think that religion/honouring the dead needs to take a back seat here. Let us consider reason, science and facts in this case and get the bones tested.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@aliciarichards6634 I honestly can't agree. I think it will muddy the waters more. It is unlikely that the bones are the princes and then what? Put them back in the urn with an inaccurate inscription? Put them back with no inscription? Bury them elsewhere, but where is appropriate? Throw them away? It is over 500 years ago and would make absolutely no difference to anything now. It doesn't affect the succession to the Crown The Queen's right comes via her Stuart ancestry. Let the dead rest in peace. We don't have to know everything.

@amijohnson8987 5 лет назад

There are a variety of reasons they won’t allow DNA. First of all they need an unbroken female line starting with either the Princes mother or sister. I’m not sure that exists. Richard III was identified by the ONLY and last person who was descended from one of his sisters, and all daughters to the guy named Michael who was eventually used. They could use him because he still contained The matrilineal line through his mother. Another reason is that the current heirs of Somerset also have DNA and were found to not be related at all to their Somerset ancestors. The Queen isn’t about to allow questions of her legitimacy, from possibly centuries back, to prove the bones belong to the Princes. Lastly, let’s say they did discover through DNA that the bones do belong to the Princes. There’s no way of telling how they died, as it’s my understanding there were no visible signs of harm to the bones, and even were they to discover how they died there would be no way of proving it was Richard that had them killed. I’m convinced the bones are those of the Princes and that the most likely scenario was that Richard eventually got to the point where he had to get rid of them to secure his throne. Remember all the crap his brother went through by initially keeping Henry VI alive! So many people believed he killed them that it cost him his throne...why wouldn’t he show them if they were still alive?? Plus the fact that there were no sightings of them anywhere after that summer lead me to the most logical conclusion...they were dead by then.

@j.a.stafford1617 5 лет назад

Caitlyn, another problem is that the Queen refuses to allow testing on the bones. She also refused to allow Richard to be buried in Westminster, even though there was room and she had the prerogative. This happened when Anne Mowbray’s body was discovered back in the 60’s. The Palace website used to call RIII a usurper. Hopefully, Charles will be more open to finding out the truth.

@bettygreenhansen 5 лет назад

This was a very interesting portrayal of an historical mystery. I loved the monologue at the beginning. Who wrote that? Chilling, as read by a boy with a modern London accent. Kudos for realism.

@neilforbes416 4 года назад

It was an interesting portrayal of A historical mystery! Not an historical, but A historical mystery!

@belldandypleb5610 4 года назад

Neil Forbes Actually, both are grammatically correct. It is acceptable to use 'An' in front of a word beginning with an 'H' (not A 'H'). You don’t say 'A hour', or 'A honour', you say 'An hour' and 'An honour'. There are other examples where it is acceptable to use 'An' in front of a soft sounding 'H'.

@neilforbes416 4 года назад

@@belldandypleb5610 You only use "an" as the preposition when the 'H' is silent. In ALL other cases, it's 'a', "A historic event", "A horrific accident", "A herbal remedy", "A hard task", "A heavy load". It is NEVER correct to say "an historic event" because the 'H' is aspirated(pronounced). And note the example "A herbal remedy" which Americans always get wrong by dropping the 'H' when it is supposed to be pronounced!

@LBGirl1988 4 года назад

@@neilforbes416 Americans pronounce herbal the way it sounds to us when a Frenchman pronounces it. No offense but you people pronounce Beauchamp as Beechum. Weird! Let's not go there... Although I was so impressed by the butchering of that French Beau-champ name that I named my dog after that tower. LOL!

@neilforbes416 4 года назад

Not "an historical"..... it is "A Historical mystery".

@TheWilkReport 3 года назад

It is quite likely, as Terry Jones, believed, that the future Henry VII was behind the murder of the young princes, as he stood to gain the crown without them in the picture and Richard III killed in battle and buried in what became a car park.

@katlynwebb8474 3 года назад

I would suggest Alison Weir’s novel “Wars of the roses” it goes into detail what caused the war and the lineage of the princes family

@bitchimgordie 5 лет назад

Your retelling is so captivating. I love this video.

@johnniemuterspaw9679 3 года назад

I loved this video. Thank you. This King’s events, I believe , partly helps bring in the “ tutor Rose war.

@miriamgp9881 4 года назад

Wonderful short piece! Although I find it interesting that an official channel seems to question the absence of DNA tests... you are the ones who have the answer, people! Please let the science rule if these are the poor boys...

@wildelunedandthewesternisl2801 3 года назад

What do i think? The boys lived and have descendants today. Richard came to an agreement with Dowager Queen Elisabeth after the death of his own son that they wouldn't let the family history be for nothing, that the Yorks would eventually inherit. Making Richard out to be a monster would further protect the inconvenient truth that Margaret Beaufort and her son simply didn't know where the boys were. They wanted to to quash any rumours that the true heir lived. Margaret had spent her life narcisstically investing herself in her own importance and that of her son, she wasn't about to let rumour scupper her chances. The Yorks have major support and had enough in the tower to see it done. Elisabeth marrying Tudor would ensure whatever happened, success in the plan or no, a York would still sit on the throne. DNA testing would confirm this to be true, that those children arn't the Princes in the tower but two children killed later, peasant boys whos parents were paid to 'give them a better life'. Remains kept in case Margaret had to magically produce evidence the boys were dead.

@JamesBrown-ij1px 4 года назад

Why no DNA Testing? What are they hiding?

@PoweredByTea 2 месяца назад

Elizabeth was a comoner, the marriage was a morganatic marriage, which meant any issue from said marriage were not able to inherit or become heir to the father.

@jillianaprati108 5 лет назад

How frustrating that dna testing requests have been refused. Why?! I need to know!!!

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

There have been a number of reasons. It would mean interfering with other royal tombs. If the remains are not the princes, then what happens to them? Leave them where they are with an inaccurate inscription. Change the inscription? Rebury the bones? Where would be appropriate? Throw them away? It isn't simple and not worth disturbing the dead for an exercise that now could be only to satisfy curiosity.

@jillianaprati108 5 лет назад

M Scott you make curiosity sound like no worthy cause. Not only do I think it a a worthy cause but It’s also satisfying the history books. If it turned out not to be them I would rebury. Or relabel as ‘unknown children in the tower once thought to be the princes’.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@jillianaprati108 I don't really think it is. I don't see any point really in having an inscription saying that they were once thought to be the princes. Just leave the dead in peace. There are far too many people digging them up.

@Eabha-nc8gf 4 года назад

@@mscott3918 Well they are buried in a "Royal" Abbey now and we dont know if it is them. So if they do the test and find out its not them just leave them there like they have been all along. Problem solved simple as.

@snickerdoodlecat0 4 года назад

At 11:21 it looks like the boys are cuddling each other.

@SeanRCope Год назад

They’re the princes. Don’t need to test them. Can you imagine if they tested them and came back negative? Aren’t they in Westminster? Awkward…. Who would really want to undo that just for curiosity. Let them be whoever they really were they deserved more than what they got.

@maguffintop2596 Год назад

Lol! Thumbnail should have the boys wearing g their gaming headsets on.

@colinroberts7322 3 года назад

I get that henry vii wants the plantangenets to be a memory but he can't lie to history

@AveryMilieu 5 лет назад

I am under the impression there was some correspondence regarding the upkeep for the young princes several years later. Something about horses and garments... That their mother never openly mourned them says a LOT.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

There is a reference in the accounts of Richard's household saying, 'all the children to be together at one breakfast,'. Unfortunately the children aren't named.

@amijohnson8987 5 лет назад

That was likely for his son and the children of Clarence. If the children were alive all Richard needed to do was produce them, which he couldn’t. In terms of her not grieving...how can we know?? She had taken sanctuary at Westminster so there’s no way of knowing how she acted at that time.

@dianelloyd7464 4 года назад

Stephanie Logan Yes he did. Richard was married to Anne Neville and they had a son together, Edward of Middleham, who died aged 10. Richard and Anne also looked after the Duke of Clarence’s children (mothered by Isabel Neville - Anne’s sister). Clarence was executed for being a traitor and Isabel died of fever. So there was for a time, 3 children living together with Richard.

@amijohnson8987 4 года назад

Eugene Oisten Not only did I watch the entirety of the video but I also hold a Major in Medieval Studies from Notre Dame...so no, I’m not just ‘talking out my piehole’....

@amijohnson8987 4 года назад

Eugene Oisten there is only MINOR anecdotal evidence of Elizabeth Woodville’s ‘grief’, or lack there of. The entire video is biased. I’m no RIII hater, although I do think it was on his orders the Princes were killed, but he watched his father killed for essentially believing in a holiday truce, and his brother Edward IV trying to keep Henry VI alive, but eventually coming to the realisation that his throne would never be secure as long as Henry and Edward of Westminster were living. As soon as the Woodville’s attempted to rescue the Princes they were not seen or heard from again. I’m sure RIII didn’t plan to get rid of them from the beginning, but when it became clear that not everyone was buying his illegitimacy claim he didn’t really have a choice...

@twilightlife 5 лет назад

I’m wondering why DNA testing was refused .

@cobeath1 5 лет назад

they are buried in Westminster Abby. The church as does most churches frowns upon disturbing the dead.

@MsStephenson3 5 лет назад

So they don't disturb the dead most likely. But you have to wonder, will that put any legitimate claim to the throne in question.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@MsStephenson3 No it won't. There are several reasons why testing hasn't happened. It would mean opening other royal tombs to take DNA samples, and for no reason other than satisfying curiosity. Suppose the bones aren't the princes. What happens next? Leave them where they are, with an incorrect inscription? Throw them away? Rebury them? If so, where? It really isn't simple.

@willowtree7343 5 лет назад

Because it may show that they were Illegitimate ?

@VelvetMetrolink 5 лет назад

@@willowtree7343 Marriage has no impact on DNA.

@darkviolet 5 лет назад

I really enjoyed this. And it's at a level that even my non-historian family could enjoy. Thank you, please make more! 😊

@annbush1826 3 года назад

Well done. Of the many historical reports on the period, “The King’s Peace” and “The King’s War”, both by Veronica Wedgewood, give the most concise account for any who would like to learn more of the time when the sacred right of kings was ended.

@tmfromdenmark9158 3 года назад

Agree It is like we where there . Good job ☺️

@izzycolligan9567 3 года назад

SANE

@tarawrr20 4 года назад

This mystery really gets at me! I want to know what happened to those poor boys! I believe the Tudors were partially, or all responsible, for their disappearances or deaths

@armaanhafiz Год назад

King Charles's ii has approved a new investigation about the skeleton remains found

@garylefevers 5 лет назад

Personally, I believe that Henry the 7th had more of a motive to kill those poor unfortunate boys than Richard the 3rd. Just my opinion. Thank you for such excellent unbiased content. Have a nice day everyone.

@jamessheridan4306 5 лет назад

Considering Henry's subsequent treatment of Richard Earl of Warwick and his conniving at that young man's death I think it certainly seems likely.

@gidzmobug2323 5 лет назад

But then their elder sister Elizabeth--who became Henry VII's Queen--should have been the next Queen.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

I agree with you. I have spent 2 years researching for my latest book, which is on just this subject. I believe that the older boy died of an infected jaw, which it is known was being treated. The younger may have been hidden by Richard, possibly with his sister in Flanders. Richard had no motive to kill the princes, Parliament having declared them illegitimate. However, when Henry VII had the act repealed, so that he could marry their sister, he also by default declared them legitimate, which gave the surviving boy or boys a better claim to the throne. Certainly, when Henry was dying he had something so terrible on his conscience that he couldn't confess it, and died worrying about his soul. There are two child sized coffins in the Edward IV vault in St George's Chapel at Windsor. The occupants have never been identified. I find it fascinating.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@gidzmobug2323 By making her legitimate, Henry also by default made her brothers legitimate, with a better, indeed legitimate claim to the throne. Richard had no such worry as Parliament had made them all illegitimate.

@Midlife_Manical_Mayhem 5 лет назад

@@gidzmobug2323 henry vii became king by conquest. he beat the current king in battle. that is what made him king, thus ending the york line. however, he married elizabeth to help strengthen his claim. henry vii was a descendant of john of gaunt who was an illegitimate child of edward iii.

@romeblanchard3419 5 лет назад

If you have two precious stones will you keep them on a same box? -Elizabeth Woodville, The White Queen

@sweetlikechocolate437 3 года назад

Two precious jewels!

@omfug7148 5 лет назад

I think that those were their remains, beside murder, the only other plausible explanation is that the boys contracted something like the sweating sickness and died.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

The elder was known to be seriously ill with an infected jaw, and was being treated by a Doctor John Argentine.

@welsan-4115 5 лет назад

One of the interesting elements about the mystery is that their deaths were never proclaimed. Successors cemented their claims by publicly announcing the demise of their predecessors (such as in Richard's death) and this never happened with the princes. If it had been a natural death I think it would have been announced. Fascinating concept for a compelling mystery.

@bettygreenhansen 5 лет назад

I think sweating sickness is possible, but highly unlikely, as the Princes were “lost” to history 2 years prior to the first recorded outbreak of sweating sickness in England by all accounts.

@omfug7148 5 лет назад

@@bettygreenhansen or some other infectious disease, even something like the flu could have killed them

@sandranorman5469 4 года назад

Richard III would have let the populace know that Prince Edward was dead, by displaying their bodies. That would have wiped out any resistance to RIII.rule.

@Christian-ql7uq 5 лет назад

Whatever happened to the princes, I doubt it happened to them in T-Shirts

@phillipdannyjohnston8506 4 года назад

Or typing on tablets!

@fwl8871 4 года назад

Christian Sylvester it’s a modern take on the story

@msrainbowbrite 4 года назад

don't forget the sneakers. The princes' wore sneakers

@helenstewart8736 3 года назад

I don't think that people now a days would trudge around a public building wearing sweaty and very ancient cloths. This is a modern version!!

@g0ld3ncup1d Месяц назад

LMAOO 😭

@idontwantachannel7542 5 лет назад

Very well done video. I appreciate it that you used so little (no period clothing, no re-enactments, etc.) to make so effective a presentation. There are a few things you might also consider. Henry VII generally based his right to the throne on his having taken it (by right of arms) but he doesn't marry just "one of the daughters of Elizabeth Woodville." He marries the eldest daughter. In the absence of the princes, Henry VII can bolster his claim by marrying Elizabeth of York; that he has the throne, in part, in right of his wife. That would suggest the princes were known to be dead by then (though it is significant that the two pretenders he later faces were of the younger prince, which makes one wonder "Why not the elder prince?" - unless he was certainly known to be dead). There also are the two coffins of unidentified children buried with Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville in St. George's Chapel at Windsor. If those are the princes, well . . .

@cathmorton918 5 лет назад

@calihartley2010 What !!!!

@unamed2516 5 лет назад

I personally would have preferred period close but the boys were still okay actors in their red t-shirts.

@idontwantachannel7542 5 лет назад

This might be a bit nit-picky but the princes were of the House of York, the white rose, while the House of Lancaster was the red rose. So, maybe, the t-shirts should have been white.

@InexplicablyPurpleRose 2 года назад

I'm a little late to reply to you, and you've probably forgotten about your comment, but you may want to consider that Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville lost three children before they lost the boys...it could very likely be them as well.....just a thought.

@janicem9225 Год назад

It's stupid looking.

@ingriddubbel8468 4 года назад

I always think Henry VII had them killed to strengthen his wife's (the boys sister) claim to the throne. Richard III legally had the throne. Henry was technically the usurper.

@Eabha-nc8gf 4 года назад

Agreed. I dont understand why people say Richard was a usurper I mean obviously it was Henry Tudor that was the usurper seeing as he killed King Richard.

@cjb4924 4 года назад

@@Eabha-nc8gf yes, Henry Tudor was the true usurper. Richard was legitimately the next in line. l tend to think that Edward lV himself was ichard was the true heir all along, which may explain his seizure of the throne. l also think he had the princes kis rule as someone his opponents could rally around. People also forget that the Princes were brought up by the ided with them and not "uncle Richard", they would always have been a threat ing been declared ignation ime.

@Eabha-nc8gf 4 года назад

@@cjb4924 However, we can not for sure say it was Richard, he might have sent them to safety in another country and Henry VII found them and had them killed as he had made them legitimate and they could try and take the throne from them. It is extremely likely Edward IV was illegitimate and had no true claim to the throne due to the fact the time he was conceived matches the time of his father being away, so I can see why Richard made sure that he was gonna be made King so a true York would be King.

@martheresa7550 4 года назад

Henry VII won the throne by conquest. So deal with it. Richard lost.

@albertromas357 3 года назад

@@martheresa7550 is like saying William I shouldn’t be king of England

@MsStephenson3 5 лет назад

Very well done. I absolutely think they princes were murdered and DNA testing should be allowed. If nothing else to give them a name and a proper burial.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

Suppose they aren't the princes? Still no name and no right to be where they are.

@JRLARNER 2 года назад

They are unlikely to be the boys' remains - they were found much too deep for the mediaeval period. Charles II had a vested interest in claiming the bones were theirs because he was becoming unpopular and it was vital for him to emphasise the sin of regicide.

@blissgirl9052 5 лет назад

Really well done video, edgy and engaging. I love the two young lads and the added snippets from Shakespeare. More videos like this please!

@szilviacrampton262 4 года назад

i hope one day we find out. i mean seriously is it really a coincidence that two kids were found with the teeth of a 7-10 year old and a 12-13 year old?

@rogueriderhood1862 3 года назад

The testing in 1933 was rudimentary by modern standards. What would be much better would be a full, forensic examination of the remains. Unlikely to happen, though.

@VeracityLH 3 года назад

Read up on "the bones" some more and you'll find there is a lot more hit air than fact to this. 1) There was no chain of custody for one thing. It was days after the bones were found and dumped with the rubbish that someone even thought that there might be a connection. If there were any bits of velvet, etc, there would be no way to prove they were found with the bones, or that the bones in the urn are the same ones originally found. 2) These bones get a lot of credit for being found "under a stair," as per More's account. Except More actually said that the bones had at first been buried under a stair, but later moved to a secret location. If More's account were accurate, it would actually prove that the 1674 bones couldn't be the princes. 2) When they opened the urn in 1933 they found that some of the "bones" were actually nails, some were animal bones, and the "examinations" were done by those who already were convinced that they were the princes. Even then, their estimations were pretty vague: the younger set of bones supposedly belonged to a male 7-10 years? So not an infant, not a teenager, which proves....nothing. 3) This isn't the only case by far of bones being found within the Tower (likely why they were tossed when found), and it's not even the first case of two children's bones being found. 4) Then there's the case of the hidden chamber next to Edward IV's tomb containing...wait for it... the bodies of two children. Who might they be then? One would think they far more likely to be his children. 5) As for why they 1674 bones were retrieved and urned in Westminster, the political climate of that year gives good reason for the whole thing being a propaganda exercise by Charles II. So all in all there is small chance that the 1674 bones are the princes, and I can't blame Her Majesty for not wanting to open that can of worms. There is a lot of this story that doesn't get told, because the mystery is just too juicy. It is fun to speculate though!

@schizoidboy 5 лет назад

I wonder how two kids or royal blood could be essentially forgotten so easily, especially since a lot of people of status at the Tower of London, including some captured kings of Scotland and France practically held court there while they were captive. It almost sounds as if they were left completely unattended during their time there without even a nursemaid to look after them. Personally I wondered if the Duke of Gloucester at the time was responsible for their disappearance. He tried to overthrow Richard the 3rd in a failed coupe at the time. The princes would be a larger threat to him then they ever would be for their uncle if he ever came into power.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

Richard III was the Duke of Gloucester.

@schizoidboy 5 лет назад

I made a mistake in identities regarding the attempted coup, I think - and I could be very wrong - it might have been the Duke of Buckingham who was the conspirator, and he's very much a suspect in the princes' disappearance. He was also known as the "King Maker" in some circles which hints he was very much a guy behind the scenes.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@schizoidboy The one known as The Kingmaker was the Earl of Warwick.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

@@mscott3918 and he was dead by that point as well

@daphnegrinberg9862 4 года назад

Well done and thank you Gary Le Fevers and others who commented on your post. Richard III did not kill the 'princes in the tower' - any one interested, read Josephine Tey's 'The Daughter of Time'. The first couple of chapters, setting the scene, are a bit ordinary, but the rest is based on actual research. The book's title comes from a quote: 'Truth is the daughter of Time'.

@michaelbaughman8910 5 лет назад

History is written by the VICTORS! Richard had no need to kill his nephews since they were "illegitimate". Henry VII on the other had had a lot more to loose. Yes, same my say Henry was in France of the time if the murders. Ok.I'll give you that point.BUT Henry MOTHER COULD and Would use any means to get Henry the throne.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

The difficulty is that no one knows when the boys were killed, if they were. It is most probable that Edward died of natural causes as he was known to be seriously ill. There are several possibilities about the younger prince. One is that King Richard had made him his heir after his own son died, and that after Bosworth he was taken away and led an anonymous life to keep him safe. Another is that he was secure at Windsor until Henry VII became king, when he was killed. There are contemporary documents that refer to him being alive in 1486. Without definite proof it just isn't possible to decide what actually happened. Richard III wasn't a cruel man by nature, contemporary documents tell us that. The stories that say he was all date from after his death. I have been researching the story for about 2 years for my new book. I think I have seen just about everything that has survived, and apart from one overseas source, no one accused Richard of murder until at least 1486.

@scottmcginn2169 4 года назад

He had a very good reason to murder them. If they were sprung from the Tower then the nobles could rally behind them and have Richard meet the same fate as those who he had sent to the block. Legitimate claims to the throne were only ever as strong as the nobles allowed them to be. Which is why Richard was overthrown by the song fo a Welsh Chamber Boy

@jamiemohan2049 2 года назад

Not true. Sure he made them 'illegitimate', but not in the eyes of the pope. If the pope thought they were legitimate then they were still considered legitimate all over europe. He knew his claims of a pre marriage was terrible, it was clearly made up. So the boys were still a threat to him. Any powerhungry noble could kidnap and place them on the throne.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

Richard had even more reason to make the children disappear than Henry. The fact that Henry spent however many years in fear of a pretender arising to take the thrown tells you everything. Had Henry or his mother carried out those murders they would have known for sure that it was a pretender for sure. The fact that didn't know if it was a pretender or real meant that had literally no idea if those boys were alive or dead. Keep in mind Richard own son was still alive when those boys disappeared and he learnt first hand from his own brother the dangers of a rival for the throne could do. He wanted to protect his own line of succession by removing the threat. It wouldn't matter if the boys were declared illegitimate as people would still go to their rally call simply because they were the children of Edward. It is what would happen when Mary I put out her rally call as well. People didn't care about legitimacy they cared about stability

@juliancain3872 2 месяца назад

The fact that he kept those kids in the Tower after they were declared illegitimate and he was crowned King means he believed them to be a threat to him. If they weren't a threat he would have let them go. But someone might try to use them to start a rebellion? How could they do that if the boys have no claim and were no threat to him? The unfortunate reality is that that Richard had very real reason to fear for his position from his nephews.

@rachelball1174 5 лет назад

In my opinion, Henry VII had the most to lose. Thank you for this very thoughtful piece. Most enjoyable.

@fredocarroll 3 года назад

He certainly had a reason, but he didn't have _access_ at the critical time. Crowland says that Edward V and Richard, Duke of York were last seen in September 1483. That's two years before the end of Richard III's reign. In the intervening time, rumors were everywhere about their deaths. The story that King Richard had destroyed his nephews was known to other European monarchs, and it was all over London, too, long before the Battle of Bosworth. If those rumors were false, and the boys were alive, Richard could have produced them, declared that he was caring for them, bastards though they were, and it would have _strengthened_ his reign. He didn't do so. It would have eliminated one of the charges laid at his feet -- and the charge that was most damning to the most people, because infanticide is a dirty business -- and yet he didn't. From that, the logical conclusion is that they were dead whilst Richard III still reigned. If that's so, then Henry VII can't have been their destroyer. He wouldn't have had access to them until 1485, and given the _Titulus Regius_ that gave Richard III the throne, the boys were irrelevant to Henry Tudor's kingly ambitions, being officially illegitimate. If some foreign conspiracy _had_ arranged the death of the boys, then -- again -- it would have been in Richard III's interest to expose it publicly, and torture and kill those connected to it as killers of the children of a king. Again, he didn't.

@jessicasarahliddell8883 3 года назад

@@fredocarroll Henry had motive and access just not direct access - also Henry tried to invade in 1483 immediately after the disappearance of the princes - two years before the successful invasion which puts him much closer to the crime.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

@@jessicasarahliddell8883 Richard had more motive than Henry did

@jessicasarahliddell8883 2 года назад

@@cherrytraveller5915 my instinct tells me it was Henry when I realised how soon the Buckingham rebellion had happened after the children allegedly went missing I thought that either Richard had them killed and Henry realised this and decided to attack as the York position would have been seriously weakened by the loss of the two princes or Henry had them killed and then attacked Richard knowing that the other two main heirs were already gone. Henry wanted the kingdom and he wanted it more than Richard did if Richard had wanted to be king why keep the boys alive for months if Henry and Margaret used Buckingham to manipulate Richard into killing them the intention still came from them this has Lancaster written all over it I feel it was a Lancastrian plot that’s what my intuition is telling me - Tudor, Beaufort and Buckingham conspired to bring the York princes down whether they used Richard to achieve that goal remains open to debate. Defeating Richard whilst these princes were alive would have served no purpose they had to get rid of them first to stand any real chance of conquering.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

@@jessicasarahliddell8883 Your instincts is not evidence. For years after Henry took the throne he was still on the look out for anyone who claimed to be the prince. If Henry had been responsible for the murder of the princes than he wouldn't have kept one of those pretenders alive in the castle for months after his capture now would he. Couple that with the fact that Richard failed to produce any proof that the children were still alive when he was first accused of tampering with the children leads to only one conclusion. Richard who still had a living heir at the time the boys were missing knowing from his own brother experience what can happen should a living threat to the line of succession decided to make the boys vanish. This is the same man who participated in the murder or Henry VI. The execution of Buckingham, Anthony Rivers and Richard Grey. He even had his own closest advisor Hastings executed for some perceived slight. Richard knew his excuse for taking the throne was shaky at best and those boys like his brother would not stay boys forever. He learned from Henry VI mistakes. You leave a child that will one day grow and before you know it they will turn up on your door as your enemy.

@rebeccathorpe726 5 лет назад

Fantastic video - and a huge well done to the boys playing the Princes!

@idonotvlog1067 5 лет назад

Rebecca Botha Thanks :)

@kithale8651 5 лет назад

Elizabeth Woodville was hardly a commoner. By marriage she was Lady Grey and her own family were decennded from Jaquetta Woodville. They were aristocrats, if minor ones

@maryelizabethbowman8432 5 лет назад

Her father was a common squire

@nicoladestefano706 4 года назад

She actually had connections with burgundians and Flemish aristocrats. The Luxembourgs were pretty high ranked as they claimed a descent from Charlemagne

@sweetlikechocolate437 3 года назад

And Jaquetta was a high born lady. She came from an aristocratic family in France.

@sweetlikechocolate437 3 года назад

@@CS88754 actually Diana, and her Spencer family were descendants of Charles II. So she wasn't a commoner.

@princessoffire1107 3 года назад

@@sweetlikechocolate437 could be absolutely wrong in this, but I swear I remember hearing at one time many years ago when princess Diana had more of a direct claim to the English throne than Prince Charles did. now like I said I can be absolutely wrong in what I'm saying but I swear to God The more I've been reading about all of this it keeps popping up in my head

@rickker20 3 года назад

If Richard killed the boys why did he not kill Edward earl of Warwick? who was next in line to the crown. Because the boys were killed by Henry VII and who also killed Edward earl of Warwick.

@princessoffire1107 3 года назад

Teddy was supposedly slow-witted so there would have been a good chance that him being put on the throne could have been contested because of his mental state

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

Richard controlled them all. Knowing Warwick's simplicity, he decided to change to John, Earl of Lincoln, as his heir. Surviving Bosworth, Lincoln sought pardon of Henry and received it, serving on Henry's Council. Lincoln saw his chance at the crown using a feigned boy in 1487. Lincoln died in battle at Stoke. The de la Poles would be a headache for the Tudors until 1525.

@greentombdive 4 года назад

Edward V and Richard Duke of York disappeared from public view months prior to the Tudor invasion, why? Why would their uncle not be able to continue their ‘display’. Their sudden ‘invisibility’ to the public gaze was a very public PR blow to Richard, and a mortal coil spun on by the Tudor camp. On another tack, [Queen] Elizabeth [Woodville] was hardly a commoner on her maternal blood-line. Through her mother - Jacquetta of Luxembourg, eldest daughter of Peter I of Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol, Conversano and Brienne, and his wife Margaret of Baux (Margherita del Balzo of Andria) - Elizabeth and the boys were members of the European high nobility.

@theresareynolds3133 3 года назад

I’ve always thought Henry’s mom had the Prince’s killed,she was adamant about Henry become king

@tK-be6ns 3 года назад

I always thought the same

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

Richard totally controlled access to the boys. Margaret Beaufort having any any chance or desire to kill them is fantasy.

@VeracityLH 3 года назад

Yeah, except that Margaret Beaufort's husband was Constable of England after the fall of Buckingham, with full access to the Tower and the authority to act in the King's name. The princes were last seen in September, but certainly could have been alive when Stanley took office in October. So not impossible. I try to hold no opinion on whodunit, if anyone, but Beaufort and Stanley had a much opportunity as many other suspects.

@mpt3245 3 года назад

@@VeracityLH The princes were last seen somewhere between June and July. If they were killed I'm pretty sure it was pretty soon after that, so October would be a little late.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

Yeah that is why every time a pretender came along they kept wondering if it was one of the princes. Had they killed the boys they wouldn't be doing that now would they

@katsy0c0 2 года назад

Probably Richard or Buckingham. The idea that it's Margaret Beaufort is absurd and I'll never forgive Philippa Gregory for putting that fiction as fact in people's minds. 🤧

@mariavi33 2 года назад

I would highly suggest the video History Calling made about this. She goes through all of the sources, timeline, suspects, all of the possible bodies (there are more than the 2 mentioned here), and if the claim that they were illegitimate could be true. She also always makes sure to include links to the sources she uses.

@ashsboredomkingdom7867 Год назад

I agree, I love that channel

@LeastInferior0 Год назад

Princes in the tower were definitely killed. It would've been illogical on Richard III's part if they weren't killed because keeping them alive is a risk of a future inquisition on his right of inheritance of the crown; or even worse, a civil war of some sorts (whether it's to reclaim the throne, or a power attempting an illegal coup in order to enthrone oneself, or a puppet).

@idonotvlog1067 5 лет назад

Nice to see this out at last! Looks amazing and was so much fun to film.

@merriame9487 5 лет назад

Congratulations on participating! Great job 🥰😃

@junjunagbayani4792 5 лет назад

Maybe the Princes died and reincarnated into Tom Scott? :D Amazing video, by the way. Lovely way to present history.

@VeracityLH 3 года назад

Lol...good one.

@cardinaldark 5 лет назад

Excellent thank you with lots of fascinating facts :-)

@katiusicaklain9850 4 года назад

Even 500 years later, it's all still so intriguing. Especially since it's children, instead of adults. They were 12 and 9? it is very suspicious that after Edwards father dies, he's to be crowned king and his uncle Richard comes along and declares him illegitimate and has him and his younger brother put up in the tower and they are never seen again. Not to mention that there were four childrens skeletons found in the tower. Two were buried together.

@blackcat2628zd 2 года назад

The boys were declared illegitimate by the Parliament. And it was Parliament who offered the crown to Richard and confirmed him as King in Titulus Regius.

@reginaculbreth4198 5 лет назад

This was so good. Poor princes

@poshboyhd4589 5 лет назад

This video was very useful since I have a test about the princes in tower soon

@tahiranaveen 5 лет назад

Heartbreaking to see that the Tudors maligned King Richard III for their own purpose. Richard was a good and kind king. He cared for his people and his family. He had no reason to murder his nephews. I believe that probably Henry VII or his mother Margaret Beaufort were after the princes. Maybe they tried to kill the princes, and somehow the princes managed to escape. I believe that Richard III actually protected his nephews. He probably hid the princes away from everyone and took the blame. Good King Richard was loyal to the end!

@genevieverenaud2537 4 года назад

Yeah but Henri VII and Elizabeth of York loved each other deeply. I don't think that would have happened if he killed her two brothers to marry her and take the throne, plus she would have fount out eventually.

@ingriddubbel8468 4 года назад

@@genevieverenaud2537 hardly. Henry was a miserly Machiavellian.

@johnentwhistlesurelysamsun1840 4 года назад

At last there is someone, who will stick up for King Richard the lll, besides the Richard lll society, there is still no evidence, to accuse anyone of this! and i'm glad that he was given a decent buriel in Leicester Cathedral as befits a king!!

@cjb4924 4 года назад

@@johnentwhistlesurelysamsun1840 Yeh l'm glad he's buried properly too, and he certainly was unfairly maligned by his Tudor successors and was a more capable ruler than his reputation. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that he is almost certainly responsible for his nephew's deaths, after all they disappeared while in his custody. Occam's razor...the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

@torrirose6582 4 года назад

@@cjb4924 They were in his "custody" so to speak... but let's look further at who he had just appointed in 1483 Constable of England a few months before their disappearances....Margaret Beaufort's husband, Thomas Stanley... He not only had full access to the tower but was also personally responsible for anyone who entered and exited the tower.... who had more of a reason to kill the princes? Their Uncle who already had them named illegitimate and who surely knew of the people's love for them and that killing them would be the worst choice for him keeping power.... or Margaret who knew that even if she got rid of Richard , her son would still not sit on the throne because of the princes... makes much more sense to me that she had a hand in having them killed which not only demonized Richard, making her son seem much more preferable, but as mentioned, removed the favored contenders for the throne.

@alonebuthappy367 4 года назад

Surprisingly, it was not discussed that one of the suspicious murderers is Margaret of Beaufort, mother of Henry VII.

@JaneAustenAteMyCat 3 года назад

She was definitely an interesting character

@bonnieabrs1003 2 года назад

I think she had it done.

@jamiemohan2049 2 года назад

She became a suspect in modern eyes. In all likelyhood Richard had them killed.

@mbgal07 Год назад

I've always been of the theory that Margaret ordered it, so endure her son would literally have his hands washed of their killing (if discovered.) I think that Margaret's brother-in-law, Sir William Stanley, was likely the perpetrator. Not directly related to King Henry VII, but close enough to the throne not to be too suspicious. It also adds an extra layer to his Perkin Warbeck confession, and 1495 execution.

@ashsboredomkingdom7867 Год назад

I think she had strong motive to have it done

@robynsegg 2 года назад

The bones were said to be of a 12 to 13 year old and a 7 to 11 year old... Pretty close in age if you ask me. If DNA samples are taken and proves that the DNA is related to Richard III, now that his remains had been found, well... you know what that means.

@faizanali06 4 года назад

this seems like a horror movie. but everything was well put together and all the ideas were well explained. lovely video. helped me a lot with my school essay. thanks, guys!

@queenofheartslandofjoy8068 5 лет назад

Murder. I think Elizabeth kept quiet so she could keep her head and wanted to see her daughter become Queen.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

She supported Henry at first, then changed her mind. Henry, her loving son in law, confiscated all her property and had her confined to a nunnery where she died in 1492.

@Mjaymkay 4 года назад

Who is responsible for denying the dna testing? They should definitely get a dna test it’ll solve all of our questions.

@starkheart4441 5 лет назад

It was Lady Margaret. It’s ALWAYS Lady Margaret. I’ve got a better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor!

@deadfaeskin 4 года назад

Stark Heart I’ve had this debate with friends since I’m so passionate, as there’s evidence (but no definitive proof), that Sir James Tyrrell is my ancestor. It seems to be a general consensus that Lady Margaret orchestrates a large part of the murders, and sent James as her lackey. It wasn’t becoming of a lady to commit a murder

@deltamp787 4 года назад

I agree with both of you

@greatraven1 3 года назад

There was a TV mini series bout Perkin Warbeck. In it, Margaret has a private chat with him. She knows he isn’t who he says he is, because she has the Princes imprisoned. They are still alive, but have lost their minds...

@censusgary 3 года назад

That first scene showed one of the Princes in the Tower using a 15th-century iPad.

@debbieboring3422 5 лет назад

I think there were several people who would gain from the boys being gone one way or the other. Word to the wise parents make plans for your kids. And make sure many people know about it.

@justaroot4315 5 лет назад

Wish my father would have made plans...great advice

@debbieboring3422 5 лет назад

@e causey Wow, You can see even without Shakespeare they believed what they did about the Uncle. Life is stranger than fiction. It is sad to hear that you and yours were victims of such treachery within your own family.

@princessnatasha21 3 года назад

Those poor boys... Whatever happened to them I pray they didn't suffer

@Trekkifulshay 5 лет назад

I wonder if Elizabeth kept quiet to save her daughters If they can disappear the supposed to be King the girls didn't stand a chance. The fact that nobody questioned it, that we know of, suggests nobody else wanted to disappear either.

@dr.leftfield9566 5 лет назад

Murder was commonplace in medieval England when grappling for the throne however the facts suggest they weren't. Due to the fact their is too much silence on their disappearance suggests to me there is coercion by ALL parties. If they were murdered it would of been recorded somewhere for sure. What I think is that with complete agreement they were extremely secretly and handsomely exiled on the express command that they are not heard of at all. Secondly if they were with absolute guarantee they wouldn't be buried within the grounds of the tower. There are stories also that they were seen in Europe years later.

@beckysprang5517 3 года назад

I always wonder when i see documentaries about the lost princes, what would have happened if things went as Edward IV planned. His son took the throne and Richard was Lord Protector until he turned 18 (or whatever majority was for a child king) and then Edward ruled on his own. Would we have had the Reformation? Would we have had a queen like Elizabeth?

@annnee6818 3 года назад

Not that it matters much but the refusal by the palace to have the bones tested is a bit frustrating. How many kids were kicking about the tower at the time mewonders

@mpt3245 3 года назад

Not to mention, how many other kids do you think were buried there at the time?

@טליאבישי-ר7ת 4 года назад

Great presentation. One thing she only hinted at but didn't quite say is that Henry VII's connection to the throne was also illegitimate - he was the descendent of John of Gaunt and his mistress, so that he needed every support he could get. Marrying Elizabeth would help a lot, but not if the princes were alive, because they would have a stronger claim. Even if he hadn't denied their illegitimacy, they were still much closer to the direct ruling line than he was.

@kithale316 Год назад

John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford and their children were legitimized by Richard II although debarred from the throne so not illegitimate

@suebursztynski2530 Год назад

@@kithale316 but yes, debarred from the throne. Didn’t stop Henry.

@lanawarzynski6944 9 месяцев назад

I know your trying to make the boys more relatable to our time and era but u should of put on their proper attire that's how u get us involved in the story

@nikivanespen8980 5 лет назад

i'm convinced they were killed by henry tudor the pretender - and of course blamed richard the third

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

The first time anyone blamed Richard was during Henry VII 's reign.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

Based on what facts. It better not be a Philippa Gregory novel or Philippa Langley.

@songohan4668 5 лет назад

Hard to say what really happened to those boys.

@marinakaye8284 3 месяца назад

They escaped and ran a successful kebab shop in Margate. lol

@historylover-123andtudorlover 2 месяца назад

Lol

@cjb4924 4 года назад

l think Richard lll has been much maligned, and was a more honourable and able king than portrayed. However, l also believe that he ordered the princes murdered (l realize this may seem contradictory, but nonetheless l believe both statements are true). The real issue here was a struggle to control the regency. l don't think Richard started out intending to kill the princes, his initial aim was to be Lord Protector/Regent for the next 4-6 years as per his brother's will, but one thing led to another and it soon became apparent that his choice was to become king and secure his throne or be killed himself. lt is important to remember that the Princes had no sympathy for Richard, they had been brought up by the Woodvilles and there was a long-standing rivalry between the Woodvilles and the established nobility. lf the Woodvilles had gotten control of the regency, they would have had Richard killed as the most direct threat to the throne. Richard pre-empted this, but it didn't do him much good as he lost at Bosworth field. lf Richard had won there, you can be assured that we would have a different default story for what happened to the princes...they would have been killed by an evil Henry Tudor sympathizer (and we would still be having this debate, but with the default story reversed).

@mrs.cracker4622 5 лет назад

I remember reading that the remains showed retained baby teeth which is an inherited trait shared by others in the Royal family. Of course, that's sometimes found in non Royals too.

@carrie9032 2 года назад

Hoping even a commoner have a DNA testing equipment does some testing! And please make some more! Even me who has no historian thoughts in my mind can understand!

@BillMintjeHD-Brussels-Belgium 5 лет назад

A very thoughtful piece....let it be a mystery.

@midnightgamer2788 3 года назад

Elizabeth knew about what happened to Prince Arthur's mother after King John killed him. So she never said a word I guess.

@HistoryLover1550 Год назад

By far one of the most intriguing documentaries I've seen that takes a new look at this longstanding mystery. Richard III's true character and actions have both been maligned since his brief reign yet even if he had nothing to do with the real fate of his nephews, it admittedly is not hard for some to keep a suspicious eye on him in the whole scenario. Whether he was privy to what happened in the time leading to the boys disappearance or not is a burning question. I personally hold to the possibility one if not both princes survived and likely spirited out of the tower into obscurity and a cover story invented. Certainly new more detailed forensic tests on the alleged skeletons need to be done in order to finally determine who the youths lying in Westminster Abbey really are.

@Kcccc444 4 года назад

I believe Henry VII killed them.

@The-One-True-Emperor 4 года назад

My fifteenth great-grandfather 'Henry [Tudor] VII, King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland' absolutely did not murder or have killed 'the Princes in the Tower' because I mineself paternally descend from both Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. I know exactly what really happened to them and can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also, Henry VII over-turned Richard III's "Titulus Regius," thus declaring that the children begotten from the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville wert indeed lawfully of the blood royal. His reasoning for doing so were not only for maintaining the biological legitimacy of his Queen Consort, but also because 'the [Plantagenet] Princes' were allowed to live in safe obscurity. A much greater purpose was planned for them as their own respective descendants lawfully begotten will indeed re-inherit the line of succession and throne at the appointed time on LORD God's timetable. 😊 P.S. I absolutely am telling "the Real Truth."

@jacobdjjsjj2418 3 года назад

@@The-One-True-Emperor what happended then?

@sweetlikechocolate437 3 года назад

@@The-One-True-Emperor yeah, and I'm descended from Louis XIV.

@amreety 3 года назад

@@The-One-True-Emperor wait how do you know

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

Belief... Proof? Who was last known to seek and get total control over the boys before they disappeared forever.? Your beloved Richard, that's who.

@juanitarichards1074 4 года назад

There are hints in one of Thomas Mores books that the princes were smuggled out alive, and other hints in More's famous family painting by Holbein..........certain people knew the boys were given to lesser noble families to bring up in the countryside, far from court and that their mother and sister knew of it. For their own safety the secret had to be kept.

@varunvenkatasubramanian8650 3 года назад

This sounds pretty ridiculous since there's little reason for Elizabeth Woodville to hide her sons when becoming their regent can make them safer than anywhere else. A major part of Henry's claim was based on his marriage to Elizabeth of York and the support of the Woodvilles. I don't see any earthly reason for her to deny her sons their rights and empower a basic nobody when there were people late into Henry's reign who were ready to fight for them. Throwing her lot behind the Tudors could only happen if she knew or suspected her sons to be dead and there was a chance of regaining some amount of power and influence through her daughter.

@juanitarichards1074 3 года назад

@@varunvenkatasubramanian8650 Many were out to kill her sons.........why were they incarcerated in the Tower?

@varunvenkatasubramanian8650 3 года назад

@@juanitarichards1074 Richard took custody of them as regent. Know this fact first. It wasn't something Elizabeth Woodville approved of. In fact, Richard killed her brother to seize Edward and basically surrounded the Abbey they'd entered to arm-twist her into giving up Richard. If Edward was crowned king with Elizabeth as her regent, they'll have all the security in the kingdom under their control. Richard did, in fact, take Edward under the pretext of preparing him for coronation and then delayed his coronation indefinitely. Not long after this, he passed the Titulus Regius in Parliament and crowned himself king. You need a whole lot of paint to whitewash Richard and even then he won't exactly become pure white.

@juanitarichards1074 3 года назад

@@varunvenkatasubramanian8650 I know all of that, but not everybody approved his plan to murder those boys and it is possible they were rescued and spirited away for their own safety.

@varunvenkatasubramanian8650 3 года назад

@@juanitarichards1074 Assuming they were rescued, they very easily could've sought outside support to fight for their claim. In England, there were still people ready to fight for them. It makes zero sense for the Woodvilles to throw their lot in with Henry if the Princes were alive. Why would they promise Elizabeth of York in marriage to a sketchy Lancastrian claimant if they knew the princes to be alive? They're willingly undermining themselves when alternatives were available? It only makes sense if they believed they had a,chance to hold on to their lost power. Of course, they never wielded the same power under the Tudors but bringing in a third party is the act of someone who's desperate, not someone with options. You can't say they would require proof since a slew of pretenders challenged Henry much later. There was a rescue attempt. Maybe after this, Richard felt they were too dangerous to keep alive. By some accounts, he wasn't in London so he could've given instructions remotely or left instructions. He needn't do the deed himself.

@evieharris9137 4 года назад

I think it is really interesting that the DNA of King Richard the 3rd is now alvailable after his remains were found in Leicester. In theory it is only one step away from seeing if it matches to either of the two skeletons in Westminister Abbey however they do not seem to give any reason for why they refuse to allow the remains to be exumed.

@carolusrex8488 3 года назад

that is because George the 5th has ordered for the skeletons to be remain in peace. they are not to be disturbed again.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

Big difference between them. Richard wasn't buried in a church were the boys are. Leave them be

@Mustlovebooks15 5 лет назад

I like to think that they were secretly taken away to live in a different country. They would always have to fight for their crown, it would have been easier to give it to Richard and let the sisters have better lives.

@Pdmc-vu5gj 7 месяцев назад

Nah. Richard 3 killed them.

@odysseusrex5908 4 года назад

Murdered or survived? I can state, absolutely, definitively, without any possibility of contradiction, that they died something over four hundred years ago. If they had been spirited out of the tower and sent into exile somewhere, how could that possibly have been kept a complete secret? Surely there would have at least been rumors.

@JRLARNER 2 года назад

There WERE rumours - they are just not as widely publicised as the 'they were murdered' ones. To me it's the only scenario that makes sense. There had been an attack on the Tower to get to the boys which was thwarted, but Richard probably thought it best to move them somewhere secretly. It would then explain why they were no longer seen at the Tower, why he never produced them (alive or dead - it would have defeated the object), why his mother never publicly accused Richard, who Perkin Warbeck really was. There was also a precedent of a previous king keeping child rivals to the throne in his care/control. They eventually supported him - this was the Mortimer children, who were also legitimate so much more of a threat to Henry IV than the 'princes' to Richard III.

@odysseusrex5908 2 года назад

@@JRLARNER The princes were perfectly legitimate, Richard's lies on the matter and official pronouncements notwithstanding. I think their having been murdered and buried within the tower grounds (under a staircase perhaps?) also explain all questions, and much more simply.

@JRLARNER 2 года назад

@@odysseusrex5908 You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, so don't state it as fact. Parliament accepted Stillington's testimony (and there is no evidence Richar dbribed him, however there is evidence that Edward had promoted him - and imprisoned him at one time ). If you seriously think they could have been secretly buried under a staircase in the Tower, by one or two men, when hundreds of people lived there, you are deluded! Yes, that's where More said they were buried - but he also said they were reburied elsewhere. The skeletons found there in the 1600s are now thought to have been buried too deep for that period and experts examining the photos taken in the 30s now think at least one of them could be female. Your theory does not explain all the questions - why didn't he produce their bodies and say they had died of an illness - no-one could have proven him wrong and he would have been safe from rebellion in their name - kiling them secretly is just plain stupid and no-one ever accused Richard of that!

@blackcat2628zd 2 года назад

@@odysseusrex5908 I can confirm what Joanne said. It is absolutely impossible to remove a staircase, put 2 bodies in and build the staircase back during the night unnoticed. Do you have any idea how this could be done?

@mxylpx 4 года назад

Very enlightening and more of the puzzle presented. The young handsome lads added much to her retelling. Nicely done all around.

@stefanthorpenberg887 Год назад

If Arthur’s marriage with Catharine had not been ”consumated”, it would have been the talk of the town for ages. There were no such rumours. Instead it is said that Arthur bragged about his skills in the bedchamber. saying that last night ”I was a mile inside of Spain”.

@terris7842 5 лет назад

DNA testing would answer a lot of questions. I don't understand why approval for this to be done is withheld.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

There are several reasons. One is that it would mean opening other royal tombs to take DNA samples. Another is that, if it isn't the princes, what to do with the bones. Put them back with an inaccurate description or put them in the bin?

@shyhand1 10 месяцев назад

I've been tired of people sugar coating it with a lot of hypotheticals of shoulda coulda, Load of rubbish, Richard was responsible for their care it doesn't matter how they died Richard's responsible regardless

@sandranorman5469 4 года назад

BS on “pre-contract”. He just got greedy and so he got his just reward. Richard III I mean.

@jacquelinewaugh9451 5 лет назад

I wonder did they survive maybe? Hmm is it is a mystery

@musicallydisneyamvs6731 4 года назад

Mother or not it’s a time of survival, she married off her daughter to Henry 7th who had a fragile claim to the throne. She most likely kept silent for her remaining family’s safety, & future. Anything you do could be seen as disloyalty if its wanted to be seen.

@savantianprince 3 года назад

What if Lady Beaufort had ordered the deaths of the princes in the tower.

@hobbesthecat6868 Год назад

Queen Elizabeth II had said she would never allow for any DNA testing, but maybe King Charles will feel differently.

@zoeyapp2760 4 года назад

Fantastic video. Thank you for the unbiased content for the video. It was a great watch :)

@timhazeltine3256 Год назад

This presentation has the scholarly depth comparable to the thickness of a single sheet of paper. It presesents hypothesis as fact and 'dumb downs' the presentation to the an elementary level. Pretty much on point for the crass cartoonish sensationalism that characterizes HRP.

@Renata-w2b4s 2 года назад

There is no mistery. It is obvious that they were killed on the tower by their "lord protector".

@janetodonnell3564 5 лет назад

Very well done. The facts as they are know are given clearly and no jumping to conclusions. Anyone who would like to know more should read some of the books by Matthew Lewis. Stay away from those of Alison Weir as she twists facts to fit her opinions. Completely illogical to think Richard III killed them. If they were killed, I would put Henry VII and his mother at the top of the list.

@sliverscreencritic 3 года назад

How is it illogical to think it was Richard III? I believe Richard was painted as a villain by the Tudors to an unnecessary and comical extent but it's not illogical to believe it was Richard that did it. ANY motive that Henry VII and Margaret Beaufort had applies to Richard as well.

@cherrytraveller5915 2 года назад

Is it because she doesn't parrot the narrative that you want to hear. Richard had more to gain than anyone. How many people did he have executed just to get his way. Buckingham, Hastings, Anthony Rivers, Richard Grey all lost their heads and you can't think that he would kill two boys even if that meant he would secure the throne for his own child. Sounds like you have been reading a Philippa Gregory novel

@blackcat2628zd 2 года назад

I completely agree with you. And I believe the boys weren´t killed.

@RichardTheLemonBunny 2 года назад

i think they were killed on Buckingham's orders becouse he was about to sart a rebellion and so he would make it look like it was Richard so he could get more support for the rebellion

@franciscocastillo1553 5 лет назад

Omg why not do the DNA testing. Why refuse ???

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

Several reasons. To test them properly would mean opening other royal tombs and disturbing their corpses. If they aren't the princes then what to do with the bones? The dust bin? What cause, apart from curiosity, would be served? Neither The Queen nor the Church wants to disturb the dead without a really good reason, and they don't consider curiosity that reason.

@franciscocastillo1553 5 лет назад

@@mscott3918 Thank you so much for your reply. I understand that it will not undo whats all ready done. Let sleeping dogs lie.. I think closure is in order here. This is just my opinion but wouldn't the boys descendant want to know ? I would most definitely would. Thank you again.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@franciscocastillo1553 If they aren't the princes, then there is no way of knowing who they are or who is descended from them, if anyone. I agree, close it. We can't ever really know, and it isn't really relevant now. Other sets of bones have been found in the Tower of London over the years, including 2 skeletons in a sealed room. There are also 2 unidentified child sized coffins in the Edward IV vault at St George's Chapel. We will never know. Perhaps we aren't meant to.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@Honesty and Truth Exactly. Other sets of bones have been found in more likely places. Two young skeletons were found in a sealed room in the 17th century. Others were found in the moat. There are two unidentified coffins in the Edward IV vault at St George's Chapel. There seems to be a surplus of bones.

@lindsaytruempy2812 4 года назад

I think Edward died or was killed..Richard escaped before being put in the tower and a boy took his place...and that Perkin Warbeck was Richard..but to protect his sister and her children..he didnt escape Henry VII when he had a chance

@bonnieabrs1003 2 года назад

Henry also had Warbeck’s wife & son held at court. He had a chance to leave but didn’t because of this.

@coopsevy5664 5 лет назад

They Survived. Love all these discoveries!

@wolfgirl4486 4 года назад

How do you know whether they survived

@heidiz4801 4 года назад

Maybe Richard said that the boys were alive and maybe showed a letter to their Mom that the boys wrote. It's sad but it's the most logical reason why she didn't mourn publicly. The could have been dead already because there is no way those boys weren't murdered.

@colinp2238 4 года назад

One things for sure, they ain't alive now.

@Orion227 4 года назад

Murdered. Of course the skeletons are the young two princes, it’s the only explanation.

@annalisette5897 5 лет назад

Elizabeth Woodville apparently had no idea what happened to her sons since she seemed to be open to some claims by later impostors. I wonder if the older boy, Edward, died from an illness or other natural cause and if Richard was spirited away. There are various arguments, always put forth, that lead to dead ends. First, the boys had been declared illegitimate and Richard III had been made king. Therefore the princes had no political importance. (Though they could have been figureheads for rebellions.) Second, if the princes were no longer eligible for the throne, why were their deaths not publicly announced, perhaps bodies displayed and funerals forthcoming? Third, proof of death of the princes would have strengthened and further legitimized Henry VII's weak claim to the throne yet there is total silence during the Tudor years. IMO if the oldest boy, Edward V, died of natural causes, Elizabeth Woodville could have made a tacit peace with Richard III. In working with Margaret Beaufort to remove Richard and install Henry Tudor as king, Elizabeth Woodville must have accepted the non-eligible status of her son(s), either through legitimacy issues or through death at least for the older boy.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

Edward V was known to be receiving treatment for a severe jaw infection, which before antibiotics may have killed them.

@annalisette5897 5 лет назад

@@mscott3918 Yes! I was going to work that in but did not. That could account for a lot, including his seeming dread of dying or being sacrificed. That is the reason I think Edward V may have died naturally. Then, what of Prince Richard? I usually get in trouble if I make ignorant remarks about his place in the succession and I am not sure I fully understand his importance if his older brother died. It seems to me a number of the later impostors tried to say they were Richard although as I recall, Perkin Warbek was said to be Edward, probably due to his resemblance to Edward IV. Anyway, it seems Richard's continued existence was more in question than was his brother's. If Edward V died naturally, as an illegitimate offspring with Uncle Richard firmly on the throne, a very private burial might have been in order. Even a natural death of the boy would lead to cries of murder and fingers pointed toward Richard III. I think something important is missing in the story but I am not learned enough to know what it is. Considering child mortality in the day, it is possible IMO that Edward died from a jaw infection and Richard succumbed to some other un-treatable illness of the time. Someone who once replied to one of my opinions said that once the boys were de-legitimized by an act of parliament, they no longer mattered and there would have been no reason to officially note their passing.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@annalisette5897 There are several theories about Prince Richard. One is that after the death of his own son, King Richard intended making him his heir. That after Bosworth he was taken to an Abbey in Colchester and became a brick maker. Another theory is that he was with Richard's sister in Flanders. There were certainly many messages being sent there before Bosworth, and the sister supported Perkin Warbeck as her nephew. Perhaps he was. There are 2 child size coffins in the Edward IV vault at St George's Chapel that have never been identified. An interesting fact is that when Henry VII was dying, his confessor wrote that he had something so terrible on his conscience that, even dying and in fear of what would happen to his soul after death, he couldn't confess it. Was it that he knew about the deaths? It is interesting, hence my research and book.

@annalisette5897 5 лет назад

@@mscott3918 That is fascinating! I will enjoy your book. One thing that argues against any of the known impostors being one of the princes is, IMO, that none of them appealed directly to Elizabeth Woodville. Many historians have noted the close family ties in her household and Richard was so young when he joined his brother in the tower that I would think he would have tried to contact his mother. However it is, I just don't FEEL that Richard III killed them or had them killed. As others have replied to me, once they were officially de-legitimized, they didn't matter. (Except a rebellion could have been raised in their names.)

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

@@annalisette5897 Elizabeth Woodville was confined in a convent by Henry VII. She died in 1492. Perkin Warbeck appeared in 1491 and would have been unable to get access to her. After 1492 it would have been impossible.

@kithale316 Год назад

Elizabeth Woodville was Lady Grey of Groby, not a commoner

@kathymyers7279 5 лет назад

Well, they’re dead now for sure.

@mscott3918 5 лет назад

Now that is the only indisputable fact.

@michellerhodes9910 4 года назад

To think that they survived is not to follow the lessons of history. As soon as Henry VI's son died in battle, Edward IV had him killed when he had previously imprisoned him but treated him kindly. Much as I admire Richard, his behaviour smacks of a 'coup d'etat' and once he was crowned he could not allow the boys to survive. Henry VII was to do a similar thing with Edward, Earl of Warwick, imprisoning him from the age of ten. He had him executed in the end over the Perkin Warbeck affair. He was never allowed out of prison until his beheading and all because he was technically the next heir to the throne as he was Richard's nephew and the Duke of Clarence's son. The underpinning issue is that the Woodvilles and Richard did not trust each other once Edward was not there to keep the balance. I find it sensible that Elizabeth Woodville did not denounce Richard - she had her own life and that of her daughters' to think of - she acted with compliance and bided her time. As a history geek I would love for further information to be discovered but that is my take on it so far.