The Royal Pretender Who Could Have Been A Prince?... | Perkin Warbeck | The Wars Of The Roses 

Aw, thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed the video! 😊

Thank you so much for your kind words! 😊 As always, I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Sadly, DNA testing would be difficult, as although we know his burial place, he has an unmarked grave, so there would be no way of knowing which remains were his. It would be brilliant if we could work it out, though!

They could test the bones of the boys that found under the stairs in the tower. Those are thought to be the remains of the boys. King Charles would have to give permission though and I think the idea is not to rock the boat so it won't ever happen.

@@HistorysForgottenPeople you're most welcome. Such task would be quite complicated indeed. It seems that there's a lot of layers to uncover for this case 🕵🏻‍♀️

Europe, Ireland, and Scotland recognized him as Richard, as did Margaret of Burgundy. Why after torturing and hanging him, forcing him to read that ridiculous confession on threat of murdering his infant son, did Henry have him buried in a royal graveyard?

@@annstillwell730The skeletons found in 1674 were buried 10 feet deep, well under an ancient stairway that was being moved. It appears to me that the skeletons were, like so many others found in and around the Tower, probably buried before the Tower was built.

I agree with you insofar that Perkin Warbeck could have been forced to give his confession, and he certainly was noted to have a resemblance to Edward IV - as I note, however, this could mean he was an illegitimate son of Edward's, or simply that he happened to look similar. As I also note in the video, however, Margaret of York could not possibly have 'recognised' him, as she had not been back to England after Richard of Shrewsbury was born, and so she didn't actually know what he would have looked like (beyond a possible medieval written description somewhere). Another one is the myth of Henry destroying Perkin's face before the confession. Perkin gave his confession after the siege of Exeter, and appeared at court after this point, so certainly didn't have a damaged face.

@@HistorysForgottenPeople there is an entry in Margaret of Burgundy’s account rolls for meney allocated for the raising of Yorkist heirs. Who else could they have been?

Margaret of Burgundy or York, whichever, returned to London in 1480, to ask for help from Edward. She would have seen young Richard. Of course, he would have been about 6. But that resemblance to his father was already there.

the fact that this man didn't show himself during Richard's reign, exactly when his supposed mother needed such a comfort most, and could both save and damage Richard's reputation (as a murderer uncle or false usurper king) and suddenly came out of no where in Henry VII's reign, exactly when Margaret of Burgundy has turned such an obsessed woman, just rejects all of your words! besides I don't know what personality Margaret had, but she raised an asshole for a step-grandson, and since there were so much personal gains in her claim on Perkin Warbeck's case, her words aren't exactly trustworthy

@@altinaykor364 I think Elizabeth knew exactly where her sons were. There is a reason she never mentioned them to Henry and refused to blame Richard for their deaths.

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊

Thank you! 😊I can never decide if I like the painted look, the realistic look, or the medieval tapestry/painting look - I end up throwing all of them in!

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! ☺

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the video! 😊

Mechelen and Brittany were absolutely fiercely independent throughout medieval history, and it certainly is interesting how involved they were in English and Spanish history, as you say!

@@HistorysForgottenPeople Thank you. Apparently Mary of York was instrumental to moving to Mechelen, away from the fiercely independant cities of Ghent and Bruges. Also Henry VII spent an inordinate of the treasury, over half I think, on the Habsburgs. He is seen as miserly, through Empson & Dudley etc, yet it was principally going to the Emperor.

Frank Abignail is such a good comparison! Perkin was definitely a charming con-man, haha. I've sort of got something spooky lined up for Halloween, a few medieval mysteries.... 😉

Although that would be difficult to prove, I would definitely give the idea some credit. Warwick was a HUGE pain for Henry, and it's probable he was constantly thinking of how he could make him 'disappear' without being held to the same sorts of rumours Richard III had after the disappearance of the two young princes. Putting Warbeck in the Tower and 'allowing' him to meet with Warwick was just too easy, and the guards were probably under instruction to report back everything the two whispered to each other.

the Tudor rat was quite crafty, i would bet my money he purposely waited for Warwick to be older to kill him, under the last will of Henry vi, he had named George (brother of Edward vi) as his heir, therefore, Warwick under the law and by genetics (being nephew of the previous 2 kings and grandson of the Duke of york) was the rightful heir

@@doriamurriola7188 i don't really believe in 'rightful heirs' (and H7 knew more than most that even the weakest of claims can win a throne as long as you have enough support/soldiers) but yeah warwick was always going to be a focal point for discontent, so one way or another he had to be got rid of. better keep him in the tower to "protect" him then eh henry?

Edward of Warwick was imprisoned by Henry in 1485. He was 10. He was kept in solitary confinement until he was 18 then executed. I don’t see how he and Warbeck could have come into contact.

@@doriamurriola7188Edward of Warwick was most likely executed because Isabelle and Ferdinand refused to allow their daughter, Catherine of Aragon, to marry Prince Arthur while young Warwick lived.

Hi Michelle, I'm good thanks, glad you're well! 😊 The weather here is definitely becoming autumn now - cold and crisp with plenty of rain, sadly.

Hi there Ontario, lovely day today in country South Australia. We haven’t had too many of them so far but, can’t complain . We’ve had a very long, cold winter 🙏🙏🙏👵🇦🇺

Yorks themselves were the true usurpers and ruined Plantagenets. and this pretender didn't even show up during Richard's reign, which was the perfect time to show up, ending his supposed mother's suffering and work with Margaret Beaufort, ending all of the rumors about princes in the tower, cleaning Richard's name, reduce Henry's claim to the throne and...but no, choses to show up after Richard is gone and another dynasty has come and exactly when that Margaret Of Burgundy has turned obsessed! so no! considering what a great step-grandson Margaret raised, there's no trusting in those she used to groom exactly!

That's certainly fair to have that view! I personally take the view of being the merchant keeping my head down and not caring which royal family is in that week, as long as they keep trade with Flanders going! 😂

@@altinaykor364 It would help if you would name the people of whom you are speaking. I have no idea what pretender you are talking about or who his mother was. The only people I know with whom Margaret Beaufort conspired were her husband, Hastings, Morton, Rutherford, and Jane Shore. I haven’t a clue about whom you are talking.

@@nbenefiel the fact that you can't understand who I'm referencing to, is the proof of you, not even reading any of this story. anyone with complete knowledge of Wars of Roses history, knows exactly who did what, who was who's mother or son.

@@Moose.-vy5ye it's you who's embarrass yourself, by coming out of no where and suddenly attacking. and also the fact that your evidence is not even true or proved. all you just want to believe what you want to believe and reject all the logics that's inside the event

The problem is that we know where he is buried as in 'that churchyard', but it's an unmarked grave, so it's sadly unlikely to ever be solved.

As far as testing his descendants to many generations have passed for that to be considered conclusive. Additionally, a Y chromosome test can rule out someone being related but can't prove that they are.

@@HistorysForgottenPeople The Austin Friars cemetery was badly hit during the Blitz. Unfortunately, it is unlikely anything is left there to be tested. What we do have are various contemporary portraits of Perkin which bear an uncanny resemblance to EdwardIV. We do have the entries in the account rolls of both Richard and Margaret of Burgundy referring to money spent on unnamed Yorkist children.

Haha, this is me! I'd rather not have a modern monarchy, but I love the ins and outs of historical ones! 😂 I reckon ordinary people had a lot of entertainment in working out who was in charge of the country that month and gossiping about them just like we do now.

As long as you're not a usurper! 😂

Oooh, I like unrelated questions! I will admit I don't know a lot about Isabella II. When I've read a bit about the events surrounding her life, right from her uncle wanting the throne when she was a little girl to later in life when there were rumours about her due to her marriage failing, I think she had everything against her from the start. I think being a woman was enough to pitch a certain number of people against her, and it didn't matter what she did, they would never have accepted her. Having said that, she didn't make life easier for herself, especially with her marriage. There's rumours her husband was gay, and the marriage was an unhappy one, which I definitely have sympathy with, but Isabella publicly made it clear she was happy to divorce her husband for another man at one point! I do also think that there was a lot of good stuff to take from her reign, as during her regency Spain's monarchy became a constitutional one, which I think is a good move to allowing a royal family alongside a democratic culture. Overall though, I think Isabella wasn't a good queen, but equally she wasn't dealt a fair hand.

@@HistorysForgottenPeople I respect your opinion, although, I would rather have her Uncle as King of Spain.

Agreed - not to mention all the other courtiers who would have known both Edward and Richard of Shrewsbury when they were young! I think people who want to believe Warbeck really was one of the princes always hinge their argument on one person (Elizabeth) recognising him or not, when in fact there would have been a lot of people.

Elizabeth was forbidden to meet Perkin but it is not mentioned here...

@@chandos2008 As was Elizabeth Woodville. Perkin Warbeck’s resemblance to EdwardIV was remarkable. Before executing him, Henry had his face beaten past the point of recognition but there are extant portraits of him.

@@nbenefielbruh Elizabeth Woodville died before Perkin came to England😭 stop making things up it’s a tad embarrassing

@@lfgifu296 Actually, Elizabeth Woodville died in 1492. Perkin Warbeck arrived in England in 1491. She could easily have identified her son or not, but Henry would not allow her or her daughter to see him.

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the video! 😊

Hello ! How are you ?

Right? It was always such a dubious story, even for the time. Like they've just murdered Edward V and then decide the kid just a few years younger can go free, and presumably gets told, "Just don't mention it to anyone!"

@@HistorysForgottenPeople "we'll let you live but keep quiet🤭🤭" and he did, astonishingly, for many years! This is all too much to swallow, I'm afraid :')

@@DarthDread-oh2ne Good, thanks! Hope you are well too :)

@@lfgifu296 Great. I discovered A channel that retell Greek Myths in comic format. It's call:See U in history.

No, definitely not. There's no evidence for it; in fact, there's no evidence Henry was ever unfaithful to Elizabeth at all! Philippa Gregory is sadly known for hugely embellishing her books, and a lot of her outrageous claims don't have any evidence at all.

@@HistorysForgottenPeople I can see that - I’m reading the other Boleyn girl now and she makes Anne seem like an awful human being. It also comforts me knowing Henry and Elizabeth had a much better marriage then the book made it seem. Do you recommend any authors who are more historically accurate?

@@Hailey-mx4kc try Jean Plaidy or Sharon Kay Penman

@@HistorysForgottenPeople True, Philippa Gregory is selling books, not writing serious history.

It seems that Henry was interested in John de la Pole instead...did you know that?

They really are the Tudor equivalent of Chris P. Bacon, aren't they?! 😂

I just got done watching A video on "Who would be the king of England today according to Henry 's will.

Hmm....no, not really. Although I do believe, had she been able to remain on the throne, Jane would have made quite a formidable queen. It's not really about her not being crowned either - if we're happy to accept Edward V as 'king', then it doesn't matter that she wasn't crowned. But Jane wasn't raised to understand what being queen really entailed. I can't begin to think how difficult it actually would have been to basically cram years of regal understanding into just a few weeks, and while the original plan was no doubt to use her as a puppet, the letters of Jane's that have survived show she wouldn't have been happy to put up with that situation. So, I don't really think of her as a 'queen'. Having said that, if we're including her in a list of people destined for the throne, or officially announced as being on the throne, then yes, I do include her on that list. 😊

Owing that a daughter of henry VIII took her head, I'd say not. That and no coronation. Its always dicey when you arent crowned. She was a victim of her ambitous father and northumberland. In fact, she may have been spared had her father not foolishly rebelled against Mary after she had shown him mercy. He only got himself and his daughter and northumberlands son killed. She probably would have made a good qween thoufg and since the tudors were usurpers, her claim hardly mattered as any plantagenet left had a better claim. That's the problem with taking a crown by force, isn't it? You may set a dangerous precedent that falls on your own line in good time. That precedent ruined the plantagenets, scared elizabeth out of trying to further her line past herself and laid low the Stuart as well. You can blame it all on Bolinbrook.

Jane was queen in the same respect as the present charles iii was king before his coronation. as she was only there for 9 days, she didn't have time to be crowned. it may not have been in henry's will for it to go with jane, but i figure edward v had as much write to make his choice in the next ruler as henry had in saying that it had to be edward, mary, elizabeth.... and, if i remember correctly, henry viii had cut off the scotish line (margaret's children) in favor of the brandon's (mary's children), so jane would have been next after elizabeth anyway. just my thoughts.

@@HistorysForgottenPeople Exactly! It's not because she wasn't crowned, it's because her ascension was unlawful, from beggining to end. Had the people suported her, she would likely have been recognised as Queen, albeit shortly, but no one outside of a small Protestant circle did. She was not the rightful heir, and that sets her apart from Maud back in the 12th century. Maud lacked support and failed to hold the crown, but she had the strongest right to it. Jane had neither the support, nor the right, nor the coronation. The will of a 15 year old fanatic boy under the influence of power hungry men doesn't rly count for much... But yes, she was, for a time, destined for the throne :)

As you point out, his timing was completely off. Whenever any of these ideas about the boys' possible survival come up, my first question is always, "Why not come forward when they were safe, then?" No 9 or 12 year old who knows he is king or next in line would have kept quiet about that (not the 9 and 12 year olds I know, anyway! 😂). The fact Perkin waited all that time signals he wasn't one of the Princes.

Why would Richard of Shrewsbury come back during Richard´s reign? He was declared illegitimate thus had no business there. And Richard sent him away for his safety, so again why would he come back during Richard´s reign?

@@Suuusan28 to be such a Yorkist and fight for his birthright! Richard took what was his right, just as much as Henry did. to stop his mother from allying with supposedly more dangerous enemy, to clean his precious usurping York uncle's name, who didn't sent him for safety by the way! otherwise he wouldn't have been that much desperate at the end of his reign! the difference is that Henry didn't consider him alive or...he only got rid of Richard, the true usurper! why not showing up then, when it's necessary? why only fighting with Henry while Richard was the one who took everything from them first? and by the way, Richard, after losing his heir and wife, even could think for a second that his nephew might be alive, he would've declared him as his heir in order to prevent the Tudor threat, instead of doing some stupid desperate things, such as trying to groom his niece! or not! he could secretly arrange a marriage for him to make future potentials and heirs...anything, god damn it! or forget Richard! Perkin could show himself secretly to his mother to prevent her actions and give her a sight of relief so she can let go of her grudge against Richard! did he? no! so not doing all of it and appearing exactly when another dynasty has come, just proves your lies. go away and don't even bother to reply back, your fanfiction of him hiding for no reason and Richard sending him for safety (something every evidence proves otherwise) doesn't interest me at all

@@altinaykor364 I couldn't answer you even if I wanted to, i am struggling with the language. Is it english?

@@Suuusan28 that's your own problem

Well, that is why I say the most likely outcome is he was a fake, I'm certainly not arguing against that.

You don’t know that. Warbeck was tortured before reading that confession. Henry threatened to kill Warbeck’s infant son. Warbeck was extremely well educated, spoke multiple languages, was well trained in music, was well versed in the culture of EdwardIV’s court. He was accepted by most of Europe, Ireland, and Scotland, acknowledged by Margaret of Burgundy, who claimed he was her nephew. He bore an uncanny resemblance to Edward Iv. Henry had him buried in a royal cemetery.

No, nobody believes the foolishness about Anna Andersen. Why so? Because it has been *scientifically proved beyond doubt* that she was not who she claimed to be owing to DNA testing done in recent decades. Those tests confirmed that she was a Polish factory worker as the Romanov family always claimed. The tests were done with the collaboration of the present-day Polish descendants. The fact that Anna Andersen did ("would") not speak Russian might have been another clue. That is why people who object to analyses being done on remains of people who died long ago need to understand that they are not showing respect to those people or to their deceased families.

Margaret of Burgundy never acknowledged Lambert Simnel as either Warwick or EdwardV. She did acknowledge “Perkin Warbeck”. I find it unlikely that she would attempt to place the son of a Flemish boatman on the English throne, especially as her niece, Elizabeth of York was already queen. She may have hated HenryVII, but replacing her niece with a peasant boy strikes me as unlikely. Then there is that pesky entry in Margaret’s account rolls. Who were the “ Yorkist heirs” she was supporting?