I remember that we were told in year 8 to try to solve the mystery. All of us poured our little hearts and souls into trying to figure it out, only for our teacher to reveal at the end that no one knew the answer. We were all so angry 😂
But the box was found under stairs, that weren't even built when they disappeared. Furthermore in another part of the tower there were found two children skeletons in a walled up chamber before, but were just ignored. And that's not all, some account stated that their bodies were moved to a better place after their death. Leading to the finding of two unmarked children skeletons found in St. George Chapel, besides the vault for King Edward the IV. So there are a lot of children walled up in and around the Tower.
Keep in mind that child mortality rates in the middle ages were pretty high, even for royalty. Other kids could have died at any time and simply been entombed. Add palace intrigue and who knows which "spares" decided to become "heirs" to the throne at some point or another.
I stumbled on this story in high school and have been fascinated by it ever since. Like, it’s always saddest to me when it’s kids being hurt for political reasons. They don’t fully understand what’s going on or why.
I personally knew a 36 year old whose rich parents died in a plane crash when she was 16. The Executor brought in a psychiatrist because she was upset, like that wasn't normal. They drugged her then did electroshock on her until she became mentally incapacitated and needed nursing supervision. At 36 she was very childlike and the estate was still managed by the Executor. Never saw anything so sad or disgusting. Reminds me of the Rose Kennedy and Brittany Spears situation.
We don't KNOW EXACTLY what happened, but we all KNOW what happened. They were murdered within a few weeks. Those skeletons may or may not have been them. They could have been decoys. Welcome to a monarchy.
What a weird hill to die on vs oh i dont know how corporations own everything and are killing the environment for profit...or any number of important things vs some child skeletons that are literally a drop in the bucket of child skeletons found there
One of the saddest ironies to me is that, I believe modern research seems to point towards Richard being correct in a belief that his brother Edward’s marriage was not valid by the laws of the Age. I think you’ve also touched on the theory that the Queen may have committed adultery with a Knight when in France, making at least one of the Princes illegitimate? That said, I’ve no doubt they were all ruthless and power crazy. Your channel is just fantastic and I love it. Thanks.
The part about Cecily is almost certainly bogus, but the TWO secret marriages that made Eddie 4 a bigamist and PARLIAMENT to claim the kids bs-trds is true. Richard was an excellent viceroy, High Constable, and king and fools like this wide-eyed lady continue to blacken his reputation.
@@lefantomerthere is zero evidence of Edward IV being a bigamist. Both Edward and Eleanor married other people and no one said a thing. Literally no one said anything until Richard conveniently finds a priest that claims to have information. Clarence himself planned to marry Edward to a foreign princess, why would he do this if he was already married? Never mind the fact that Richard despised Elizabeth and personally murdered one of her sons. Richard killed the princes in the tower to eliminate the Grey faction from court. Simple as.
Except that Edward IV and V were of the House of York, Richard III was of the House of Lancaster, and the current crop of monarchs (going back to George V) are of the House of Windsor. These are distinct and separate families. Hell, if you really want to get into it. The House of Windsor is descended from the House of Gotha-Saxe-Coburg by the patrilinieal line from Prince Albert, Consort to Queen Victoria. Victoria was descended from the House of Hanover, which reigned over England beginning in the early 1700s. By that time, the houses of York and Plantagenet were defunct in all but name. Your comment makes no damned sense.
@@cracklingvoice Be assured that Richard lll was the brother of Edward lV and uncle to the Princes, and was as thoroughly of the House of York as it was possible to be. As to the 'rightful' English monarch, she lives in Australia, and is directly descended from the third Yorkist brother, who pre-deceased Edward and Richard.
@@rosemaryallen2128. Yes it is correct Richard III was a York. However he had 1 child who died before Anne did so how is there a claimant stating so?? The only son who lived came from Brother George Duke of Clarence. So Teddy being Earl of Warwick and well we know what happened to him and that ended the Plantagenet line. The warring York line ended with King Richard III.
There was an excellent book laying out the case that Richard took over as the king in name while the kids were supposed to be being raised before taking over for him. It was only after he was killed and the usurper Henry Tudor took over that the kids disappeared. He DEFINITELY needed them gone to legitimize his takeover. Richard never showed any hint or intention of killing them and by all contemporary accounts had massive affection for them.
I recommend “The Daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey. It’s a fictional account of a police man trying to solve this mystery while stuck in hospital with a broken leg. He concludes that there is no contemporary (ie from that time) evidence that Richard III killed the boys, or even that they died during his reign. It approaches it unemotionally and logically. It’s short and well written. Enjoy!
For anyone immediately thinking it was obviously Uncle Richard, there is actually a lot of evidence and an entire movement dedicated to Richard not being the culprit. This was just after the Wars of the Roses and Eddie IV and his wife had a lot of enemies. Plus, many didnt see their marriage as legitimate and therefore the two boys as not legitimate. Much of what we know of richard comes from tudor times...the dynasty that overthrew him
@@kartos. But he had no hump or anything. He had a scoliosis but he was no cripple. He could move normally, he even fought in battles and he had both legs and arms ok. so yes, Shakespeare was wrong.
It's called "care, custody, and control", in terms of insurance responsibility. Whether Richard committed the act himself, had someone else carry it out, or, if someone misunderstood what Richard might have said, or simply taken into their heads to harm the youngsters, is irrelevant. Richard, an uncle they barely knew, took custody of the boys, making them HIS responsibility. Therefore, if something should happen to the boys on Richard's watch, HE is responsible. Their deaths are on his hands.
@corneliastreet They wouldn't. Milton Keynes was a tiny, insignificant village at that time. It's very plausible they'd be in Stony Stratford though, it was a well-known coaching town on Watling Street, one of the main roads heading north out of London. The South Mimms services of its day, really - everyone stopped there.
It was all a big misunderstanding. Their mother asked Uncle Dick to "take care of the boys", but she had something in her eye, so it looked like she was winking.
Ye I'm pretty sure it was asphyxiation or suffocation from having a pillow put over there heads when they slept but idk this is what I was told in history class
You’re unlikely to determine asphyxiation from skeletal remains. My understanding is that it’s generally assumed that they were murdered by asphyxiation because of the lack of any other evidence at the time (like screaming or blood) and because of a theory that Richard and one or both of his brothers asphyxiated the previous king while he was being held in the Tower. So, if he did that before, some reason that he could have done it again. It’s my understanding that when the bones were examined in 1933, they didn’t examine them and collect information and let the evidence lead them. They were specifically looking for evidence that they were the Princes in the Tower. Things like that one was taller than the other and the estimated age of the bodies at death. They also looked specifically for signs of suffocation. But they didn’t do very basic things like check what sex the skeletons likely were or if there were signs of a different cause of death. They just said “These are the Princes, because of this and this. Case solved!” and ignored anything that had even the _potential_ of proving them wrong; including cause of death.
@@Annie_Annie__how do you check the sex of a child's skeleton? Adults, sure, female pelvises widen out to accommodate the birth canal, but that change only occurs at puberty.
@@maddie9602 Pelvis isn’t the only way to tell the sex based on skeletal remains. It’s my understanding, in fact, that the pelvis is rarely used on its own to determine sex. It’s used along with other characteristics to determine the _likely_ sex. The length of the femurs, the relative size of the sciatic notch (the hole in the hip bone), the shape of the back of the skull, and the shape of the chin can all help to determine sex even in toddlers. It’s not black-and-white, not even in adults, but the skeletal remains can be placed along a spectrum and help determine a more likely than not sex. Plus, if any DNA is still available after so long, it can determine their chromosomal sex.
I remember reading about this in one of the historical fiction books I read. Dangerous inheritance, i believe. I always wondered what happened to them.
I'm going with Henry Tudor. Richard was at war. Perhaps if it was later in his regency and the Tudor bastard usurper had been defeated he would have been tempted to get rid of his nephew. But the Tower was not just a prison, it was a castle and royal residence. There was a war that had been raging for generations. It makes way more sense to me that Richard wanted the Yorks to have as deep a bench as possible, in order to ensure that the Yorks maintained the throne against the bastard usurper.
The ability of pure power to currupts seemingly ever soul it touches is fascinating. We all imagine that if lut in the same siuation we wouldnt act so heinously, but history laints a different picture. There are some real, true heroes but i think its safe to say the majority of us would fail when presented with such circumstance.
They would just stop feeding them..pretty sure that was the standard🤷♂️...I also recall they found a Latin lesson or something that showed they were still being tutored though I may be mistaken
I have long maintained that them there Royals, are a right shady bunch of ne'erdowells! Recent events haven't changed my mind. (And that Cromwell was a proper wrongun' as well - for balance!)
@@meh3247 does it really? I'd be interested to hear why this is so certainly a bad thing, being as getting censored by RU-vid is a pretty common thing for those with good morals
@@dextersynesterformerlysorb5334 Best of luck with your wish for a pointless argument - unfortunately, I don't argue with the intellectually disabled. Cheerio Chuckles, good luck with your clown car.
Read Phillipa Langley's book it is more likely they lived, abroad until they adults. It was in Henry 7th interest to declare them dead. Several battles were fought to try to reinstate them, unsuccessfully....
Now do not quote me on this or take this as gospel, because I can only find a few sources that actually back up what I learned and I’m not entirely sure of all the details. and this has little to do with whether Richard killed them or not. But when I studying Wars of the Roses for sixth form we learnt about Edward IV’s wills. From what I remember he had one drawn up in the 1460s during his first reign, I think it may have been around 1465. Then after he was restored to the throne in 1471 he created another will around 1475, which leaves out his brothers. Richard III (knows as the Duke of Gloucester at that time) and George Duke of Clarence. That will does mention people in the gentry that had grown close to Edward, like Lord Hastings. However this is where you can’t take my word as gospel because this is the part I can’t find many sources to back me up. sometime not too long before his death (it’s at least after Clarence’s execution in 1478) he created another will or at least allegedly stated Richard III was to become Lord Protector. But off what I learned no one can actually find this specific will. Richard wasn’t actually present when Edward died, he was somewhere in the North. Lord Hastings ended up being the person to tell Richard of Edward’s death, not the Woodvilles. The Woodvilles were Edward IV’s in-laws because in 1464 Edward married Elizabeth Woodville. And then the power struggle between the Woodvilles and Richard iii began as to who got control. After this point Richard becomes ruthless in his actions, which can be seen as evidence supporting the idea that he did kill the princes in the tower. Anthony Woodville alongside Richard Grey (Richard Grey was one of Elizabeth Woodvilles sons from a prior marriage) travelled to Stony Stratford with Edward V. Richard had Anthony and Richard Grey arrested and soon after executed. Then Richard III turned against Lord Hastings and had him executed executed. Then there’s Richard pushing back Edward V’s coronation and declaring both the princes illegitimate. Putting them in the tower and the princes were seen less and less until they disappeared entirely. There are other theories people have as to who could’ve possibly killed the princes in the tower. Such as Henry VII. Henry VII’s mother Margaret Beaufort. And Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, who was close to Richard III for a long time. However he joined the final part of a rebellion that came to be known as Buckingham’s rebellion. Buckingham is the only person I can anywhere near confidently talk about as to the possibility of him killing the princes or being involved. But again Buckingham at that point was close to Richard III. So it still does go back to Richard III.
Has anyone considered that the 2 children were not rightful heirs? That they may have been children in name only. Perhaps that's why they won't do a DNA test.
😮😢 MOST KINGS ARE JUST THE BIGGEST BULLIES AT THE TIME & DECLARED THEMSELVES KING...... VERY UGHLY & SAD.😢 & POOR BABIES IF THEY GOT IN THE WAY 😮😮😮😢😢😢😮😮😮
I wrote a paper about the two princes in college. There are some who believe the two princes may have fled to Europe. Langley, an historian whose work was the basis of the book/film "The Lost King," has found documents said to be legit that say that their mother struck a deal to allow Edward V to live under the name John Evans. Anyway, Shakespeare had made out King Richard III to be a bad sort, usurper, and a murderer in his play about Richard, but he was deemed a legit king for the short time he was. Queen Elizabeth II didn't want the remains disturbed, but King Charles has been leaning toward allowing the DNA tests to be done. (The boys were deemed to be illegitimate heirs anyway.)
Nobody talked about them because they were still alive. There are NO accusations of murder for twenty years, even by Henry VII, who had a very shaky claim. Also, one of the skeletons was a girl.
Legit got into an argument in a history class over this since i wanted to remain objective as we just dont know the full story as in first-hand account in-the-room-where-it-happened level evidence. Managed to discuss with my teacher later and we figured that there is a possibility that the royal family MIGHT have had a test done since I think old Charlie might have had some interest in the case but due to the possibility of the public losing their god damn collective marbles if it turned out to be or not be (hehe) the princes, they may have considered to simply refuse to confirm nor deny to remain impartial. This was in the same class where we debated whether or not another dude was drowned in a wine barrel, a bathtub or both so fun times :)
Somehow, someone else has taken control of the narrative. Take a look at Shakespeare's play Richard III. He wrote it as a piece of propaganda for the Tudors, who ousted him and set themselves up as rulers.
I think you'll find that both boys grew to adulthood, and Richard III was succeeded by Richard IV. Unfortuneately, his rule was shortlived as the entire court was accidentally poisened by his nitwit son Edna...or Edgar....The Black....Vegetable.
Their mom had daughters to protect. She had already got Sanctuary in a church and that didn't protect her sons so the moment she spoke up (which she normally didn't have a problem with) her daughters would have had the same fate as her sons.
@@anguishedcarpet Her sons would have been already dead at that point. Speaking out would have ensured that her and her daughters would have been unnecessarily endangered. Over what? Justice? There wouldn't have been justice for her sons, not with their supposed murderer poised to gain power.
@anguishedcarpet what could she do when richard came to westminster abbey and took the boys from her in the first place? Honestly thinking about it, she must have been devastated.
@@anguishedcarpet She tried her hardest. Richard had already taken Edward to the tower. Richard III had relentlessly badgered and threatened Elizabeth about giving him her second son Richard. Finally she had to give Uncle Dick her second son. She kept her daughters safe. One of those daughters was Elizabeth of York future wife of Henry VII.
No, because the current royal line descends from Queen Victoria. While some branches of their family descends from the Tudors, it’s traced to Henry the 7th’s oldest daughter Queen Margaret of Scotland. The Princes would’ve been executed in any case once Henry Tudor conquered the Plantagenets. If they had been left alive, his throne never would’ve been safe. As was shown by several plots tied to imposter Princes.
Interestingly, although the 2 skeletons found in the tower were believed to be the princes in the tower and were buried as such in the 30s, when later work was being done on the tomb of Edward the 4th, 2 young boys skeletons were in with the King and Queen. Some historians think they may have been secretly buried with their parents this whole time which raises the obvious question, which set of skeletons , if either, are the princes? and who are the others?
@Tin Watchman it’s fairly common knowledge and is even mentioned on the wiki page of the princes in the tower, scroll to bodies. It mentions those found in the tower and those in at George’s chapel en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower
@@saanasalonen8684 and to add a final twist, without the consent of the current monarch, no investigations can be carried out into it. The queen never consented to the coffins being opened and the mystery solved by modern DNA analysis. By all accounts though, the now King Charles has a very different view to the late Queen and may well consent to the skeletons being exhumed for testing in the future
@@laurens3857 the adjoining vault is meant to belong to them yes, although coffins engraved with the names of their first children have been found to exist elsewhere in the chapel, weird huh
A fact always suppressed in all these discussions is that the mother of the Princes in the Tower brought about the murder of two even younger children herself. See the fate of the Desmond family, butchered by Tiptoft at her instigation.
@@melmee2235 In that case, they would have been loyal, decisive, good administators, self disciplined, preternaturally strong, the bravest of the brave in battle, concerned for justice, interested in the law, faithful husbands, devoted fathers, and capable of inspiring great devotion.
Doesn't the modern day royal family have accused child predators they refuse to let face trial or be investigated and allow access to the families children? Apple clearly didn't fall far from the tree, regardless of who the kids are
Or, the mom menage to get them out, two kids were murder and it was assumed it was them, but the mom never said anything because the kids got to live their life.
Rumors mean nothing lol. There are popular rumors about lil Richard moving to Essex and becoming a bricklayer that have exactly as much evidence as claims that either of them were murdered by anyone, much less Richard III specifically 😂 could’ve been one of the tudors, could’ve been illness or malnutrition from poor living conditions, could’ve been suicide, they could have not died at all. Like many people have said, those two were just two of many bodies of children found in, at, beneath, or around the tower. The accounts also describe that at least one of the sets of bones wasn’t the right size for a boy of his age, not sure about the other. There were different sets of bones found with their parents. It’s all rumors on rumors, twisted by Tudor propaganda designed to make Richard III worse than he already was from all the things we know for a fact he did, aided by Shakespeare’s “history” play, which takes as many artistic liberties as all his other works of fiction and is about as based on actual Richard III as Elsa is based on the original Snow Queen. 😂
No. Its more like "We don't have the political-military power to have you face consequences for your crime even IF we had evidence. You could make witnesses dissappear, threaten judges or just call everyone involved a traitor and execute them"
@@daddy_1453This is precisely the kind of power Trump is after. The ability to call someone a 'traitor' and have them executed. His supporters either don't realize how dangerous he is or just don't care.
Actually, it was good King Richard III who invented the system of posting bail, so prison reform was one of his many achievements for citizens at that time.
I seem to remember reading that historic documents shows that Richard regularly sent money for princes food and other needs in the Tower and only Henry VII stopped the funding. (and, as we know, history is written by the victors)
Didn’t H7 do something similar to Catherine of Aragon after Arthur’s death? I dimly recall reading that she and her ladies were skulking through palace corridors in rags because of some issue with the dowry, before she ended up, so to speak, with H8 to-be.
The children weren’t locked away. The Tower was used as a place of safety for the future king. It was comfortable and the boys were allowed to go outside with guards.
So I think there is also a theory that Richard became king to protect them and remove them as a target for assassination. They were kept safe at the tower until Henry Tudor became king and had the boys killed. Richard was apparently well liked at the time, and his portrayal as a villain was down to Shakespeare.
@@JayNDez22 it is a philippa gregory rewrite actually, none of the sources of around the period think that the princes were alive before their mother helped the tudors gain power
On top of that, Richard made the boys illegitimate meaning he had no reason to kill them. Henry Tudor however, posthumously re-legitimised them when marrying their sister to make his royal connection stronger. All the Richard propaganda, by Thomas More and William Shakespeare mostly, were created during Tudor reign making them very much biased. Creating the image of the evil hunchback uncle was far too easy when Richard had scoliosis and kept his nephews in the tower. I think he’s one of history’s most misunderstood figures.
I heard a theory that Henry Tudor was actually the one who had them killed as they were a threat to his rule. Richard III already had them declared bastards before he became king they and we're seen in the tower for a while after that. Plus the idea of Richard III being a big bad evil came mostly due to Shakespeare's historical plays portraying him as such. The Queen at the time was Elizabeth I, the granddaughter of Henry Tudor. Therefore her rule largely relies on the legitimacy of his. Smear campaign against Richard III? Shakespeare not wanted to get arrested or lose his head? I don't know. Dont know how true this is but it does kind of make sense to me. 🤷♀️
The Princes murder serves Henry Tudor far more than it serves Richard. Always been my opinion they were killed on his behalf, especially as his FIL had access to them at the time.
Well, Henry *did* go on a full purging spree to wipe out every member of the Plantagenet bloodline he could, up to and including harmless old ladies, so. It absolutely fits his MO.
Henry Tudor was in France, it’s unlikely his mother who was had them killed. She formed an alliance with the princes mother Elizabeth woodvile her daughter Elizabeth of York would merry Henry Tudor and be grandmother to Elizabeth the first. By the time Henry who claimed the throne by conquest, was king the boys where already missing presumed dead for years, he married their sister to make their children the combination of the two warring sides yorks and Plantagenets, the tudors where an off shoot of the Plantagenets. The Tudor rose was a combination of the white York rose and the red Plantagenet rose. To further symbolize the ‘peace’. If he had killed the princes in the tower I doubt he’d go on to have a super loving and healthy relationship with their older sister who maintained that her brothers where killed in the tower by Richard. It makes more sense their uncle who took them from their mother by force, (who was seeking safety in a convent at the time) then had them delegitimized and took their throne. Had them killed, because he had complete control over their lives, they where in his custody, protected by his guards. Henry Tudor didn’t have access to them.
@@DunkanDoughnutsHenry Tudor wasn’t married at the time of the princes death, he would end up marrying the princes sister Elizabeth of York making his father in law the late king Edward, who was also the boys father. I think you mean his step father? But he didn’t have access to the boys, Richard had complete control over who had access to them.
@j.a.m5083 yes I mean his stepfather, and yes he did. It was his stepfather who was tasked with caring for the boys while they were in the tower on Richards behalf.
Don't forget that the person who said they were missing and who said they were murdered by Richard was Henry VII and his officials, who had a vested interest in defaming Richard. Henry's claim to the throne was very weak, through his mother Lady Margaret Hall who was a descendant of King Edward III and passed a disputed claim to the English throne to her son, Henry Tudor. Henry was known for being sly and manipulative; Richard was considered honourable and courageous. Richard was the last king to lead his army in battle; Henry made sure he himself was not in any danger. Following his seizure of the throne from Richard III in 1485, Henry VII executed rival claimants to the throne and then married the Princes' elder sister, Elizabeth of York, to solidify his claim to the throne. Her right to inherit was dependent on both her brothers being dead.
Henry VII’s claim was by Right Of Conquest, only. He ignored any other possible grounds, like descent via lines which had given up any rights to the throne, when he dictated what Parliament put in the law which gave him the throne (rather than one of Richard’s heirs).
100% this. Henry Tudor had a huge motive to kill off the princes, while Richard had effectively none. He already had them declared bastards, he was crowned, and they were safely under guard in the tower.
Their mother wouldn't say anything because Uncle Richard would disappear her too. This was back in the day when women were property not actual people yet.
One of the boys was the king. He murdered the king as part of a coup- of course there mother didn't say anything. She was much less important, legally and politically
As a mother it must have been incredibly devastating and terrifying to know that your young sons are now a target for any and every power hungry heir and as a woman your ability to protect them is only as good as the men supporting you.
Sadly she and her clan stirred up a hornets nest which led to all this when they attempted to seize the throne. In GoT Cersei Lannister is based on her and the Lannisters partly based on the Woodvilles. Edward IV made Richard III Regent but as soon as Edward died Elizabeth rallied her Woodville allies and had that overruled in favour of a ruling council were her and her relatives had a majority. She effectively was making herself regent instead of Richard. This was a coup she attempted that created two factions among the Yorkists, the traditionalists who rallied around Richard & the Woodvilles & allies. Edward V's age meant he was only going to need a regent a few years and he had been raised by Elizabeth's brother so was firmly a member of the Woodville faction. When their became no reconciliation between the two factions (which Elizabeth in part contributed to) removal of Edward V as king was inevitable (though of course still awful what Richard did). None of this ofc would have happened if Edward married for political reasons instead of for love. Richard would not be able to put aside the grandchildren of a major English lord or of a relative of the king of France. He could to a jumped up family of knights.
Yes, but one accusation Henry VII never made was that Richard III had the princes murdered. I, personally, think they were removed to the north of England, where Richard III had his power base. I could be wrong, though.
Henry VII could also be the one responsible for their deaths as his claim to the throne was very shaky. with them out of the way he had no rivals to the throne.
@@eggchompwhat did everyone get syphilis back then? 😅 The more and more I learn about history the more I'm grateful for being born in an age where we've got painkillers 😂
@@senseishu937 not everyone had it. It was expected of aristocratic men to take a mistress. If either had syphilis then in the early stages they'd be unaware and pass it on to any partners. The treatment for syphilis was mercury, which is how we know Henry VIII didn't have it as he was never given mercury
