What Happened To The Princes In The Tower?

Подписаться 553 тыс.

Просмотров 41 тыс.

50% 1

One of England's greatest mysteries is the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. Inside the Tower of London in 1483 was the Edward V and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury. Their father Edward IV had recently died after succumbing to a short illness, and the boys were waiting for Edward's coronation inside the Tower of London which was tradition at the time. Their uncle Richard of Gloucester/Richard III had been appointed as their protector to keep the boys safe and had his guards keeping their eyes on the boys.
However mysteriously as summer 1483 passed on, the two princes became seen less often to the point where they were never seen again. The Princes In The Tower mystery has captivated millions for centuries and still 500 years on we are no closer to establishing a definite answer as to what happened to the two young boys. There are a number of suspects though, including the most prominent Richard III. Historians sometimes consider that Richard was the most likely culprit having the two boys murdered so he could take the throne, as he quickly became King after he declared the boys illegitimate.
There are a number of suspects and possibilities, however nothing is concrete. Henry VII, Henry Stafford the 2nd Duke of Buckingham are also suspected, but when bones were found under a staircase inside the Tower of London during Charles II's reign, these were taken as belonging to the boys. No DNA testing has even been conducted on these remains, but they remain interred in Westminster Abbey in an incredibly powerful position inside Henry VII's Lady Chapel. The fact these bones were placed inside the Abbey shows that in the 17th century they believed these to actually have been the remains. But it shows you that even a century or so after the disappearance, the mystery captivated England. Join us today as we take an in-depth look at, 'What happened to the Princes In The Tower?' Please comment down below also to share your view on the story, I'd love to hear your opinions!
Thanks for watching! Support the channel by subscribing, liking, and sharing.
Follow me on Twitter: / theuntoldpast
Follow me on Instagram: theuntoldpast
Music: 'I am a man who will fight for your honour. by Chris Zabriskie'
Disclaimer: All opinions and comment stated below in the Comments section do not represent the opinion of TheUntoldPast. All opinions and comments and dialogue should discuss the video above in a historical manner.
TheUntoldPast does not accept any racism, profanity, insults, sexism or any negative discussion aimed at an individual. TheUntoldPast has the right to delete any comment with this content inside it and also ban the user from the channel.

Опубликовано:

26 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 287

@wht-rabt-obj 3 года назад

I agree. Richard not ever having ordered an inquiry into their disappearance, is very telling.

@sealthrob Год назад

There is nothing that tells us they had disappeared before Henry VII went to get them. There is no real proof of the exact timing of their disappearance.

@mariagarner1658 3 года назад

I hope further testing on the bones is allowed. The results would be fascinating.

@crownhic6827 3 года назад

Talk about opening a can of worms. For current nobility.

@annnee6818 3 года назад

Same. Bit stupid...

@annnee6818 3 года назад

@@crownhic6827 You think people would be shocked? I doubt that very much indeed. Even if it turned out it WAS the princes we still wouldn't know who killed them. So... what can of worms?

@jonpress4470 3 года назад

The frustrating part about this mystery is we have the skeletons of children that could potentially solve this mystery and yet we haven't because... why?!

@mrbiggs6818 3 года назад

We could at the very least carbon date them... let us get some closure to this mystery!

@smithamy1982 3 года назад

If they are or are not the actual princes, it still wouldn’t tell us what happened or who did it. It would clarify if it was their remains but that’s it. It wouldn’t show if they were smothered, poisoned or who did it.

@annnee6818 3 года назад

Sentimentality

@widowrumstrypze9705 3 года назад

@@annnee6818 If people started making royal dna a public thing, it would make all *sorts* of people who depend on bloodline bragging rights SO nervous. Start making them quantify their dna for REAL, it could effect inhertitences, or expose dirty cheaters and oooo, SECRETS!!! That would be so fun, though. Would it end up doing away with the concept of royalty, altogether?

@mattpotter8725 2 года назад

I think the skeletons found in the Tower under that staircase had been tested and they weren't from the time of Richard III. That or there was something about where they were found that excluded them from being them, for example the staircase and part of the Tower having been rebuilt later on. That doesn't mean that he didn't have them killed, but it is speculation as to what actually happened to them.

@cugelchannel4733 Год назад

For some reason lots of people keep trying to exonerate Richard for the Princes murder, yet he was the only person who had access to them, and he had the motive. Clearly, he didn't intend at first to kill them and take the throne, but to let Edward be crowned would be fatal to his power. Edward was raised by Earl Rivers ally of the Woodvilles and the boy would undoubtedly have favored them. So, he moved against the Woodvilles first, but Prince Edward demanded he release them. Richard refused and took custody of the boy whom he lodged in the Tower. Then he tried to get the Council to approve his being named sole regent, but that failed and they demanded an immediate coronation. If he agreed to that he would put a boy who favored his enemies and regarded him as a dangerous enemy on the throne. Certainly, he would have been forced to free the Woodville prisoners, letting dangerous enemies free to plot against him, with the Queen Dowager and the new King possibly supporting them. Even then he seems to have waited until the plot to free them was uncovered in July 1483. At that point Richard realized that the boys were too dangerous alive. Other Yorkists who resented his usurpation could have used them in plots against him if they could be freed. The only safe thing to do to safeguard his reign at that point was to kill them.

@widowkeeper4739 3 года назад

I doubt Richard III would have let them live. I do hope they do more testing on the bones found in the ToL some day. Poor babies. 😩

@ModelTrainOutsider 3 года назад

The only truth is the boys were more in Henry Tudor's way to the throne. They had already been removed from the Yorkist line when their father was declared illegitimate. However, upon the death of Richard, they would still have had a far greater claim to the throne then Henry Tudor. According to records, they were last seen a few months before Richard was killed. It is likely they did die on his watch, and as their mother was a notorious gold digging pain who used her position to advance her family into positions they were unfit for, she may have been maneuvering to oust Richard for them. Yet, we know the Tudors conveniently rewrote a lot of history to suit their agendas. Sadly, we will never know.

@byenye6386 3 года назад

@@ModelTrainOutsider Richard did it was plan and simple. Elizabeth woodville was a good queen she was no gold digger her son and brother were executed trying to protect them on the orders of Richard 3

@generalnapoleonbonaparte3186 3 года назад

WIDOW KEEPER BECAUSE Edward 4th entered into a legally binding contract he legally only had one wife his first wife.It's Just as likely that It was Henry 7th that killed the princes,to claim the throne.

@byenye6386 3 года назад

@@generalnapoleonbonaparte3186 I think there is one other person who ordered too Margaret Beaufort Henry 's mom could of done it too not by the orders of Henry but my her own willingness knowing that Richard the 3 already made them illegitimate and had their uncle and brother killed it would made it easier to blame Richard but in my eyes Richard did it because if he let the boys live they would have challenged him for the throne and would have alot of support

@superdisneyturkey06t59 3 года назад

I think the boys were killed immideatly after entering the tower. I think they then hid the bodies for a little while until everyone forgot abput them or nobody was around lifted the steps dug a grave put thr bodies in the box buried them replaced the step and had the steps touched up so they looked natural

@paradox7358 3 года назад

Did Richard III murder his nephews? Well if you were a medieval king who just gained the throne, you're going to do everything in your power to remove any possible threat to your position. If your young nephews, who have a greater claim the throne than you, are within your control, you're going to remove that threat by any means possible.

@ukmedicfrcs 3 года назад

They were deemed unfit for the throne. They were not a threat.

@charlesfaure1189 3 года назад

@@ukmedicfrcs Nonsense. That Act of Parliament could have been rescinded if another faction took power. It was always the sword that decided in the end. Parliament was going to rubber-stamp the winner no matter who it was.

@ukmedicfrcs 3 года назад

@@charlesfaure1189 Maybe in your opinion it's nonsense but in reality it's fact. But you believe what you wish, no matter how wrong you are. Have a fabulous day or evening depending on where you reside. "The antiquity and general acceptance of an opinion is not assurance of its truth”,

@charlesfaure1189 3 года назад

The order by Parliament declaring the Princes illegitimate in no way made them irrelevant. Edward IV himself was an usurper, and Richard certainly was, and that didn't keep them from the throne. With enough spears behind them the Princes could have been a threat. And what one Parliament declares, another can rescind. Edward V's legitimacy could have been restored should a faction supporting him seize power. Exactly what they did for Henry Tudor, whose claim to the throne was a joke. After murdering the leading Woodevilles Richard was a dead man if Prince Edward took the throne. The boy was essentially raised a Woodeville and was close to his murdered uncle Anthony. For Richard the murder of the Princes was an inevitability if he couldn't "de-Woodevillize" them. No chance of that.

@beth7935 3 года назад

Yes! If they were irrelevant & "no threat to Richard", why keep them locked up forever?

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

I agree. At Bosworth the stakes were clear. Both Richard and Henry knew that battle would decide this. Neither could retreat. Henry had been hunted half his life by Edward IV and Richard III. Richard had crossed the Rubicon by the deposition of Edward V.

@radboy707 3 года назад

While dying Edward IV had made his brother Richard, Lord Protector of the Realm, basically regent of Edward V. But the Woodville were new royalty and raised in status by virtue of Elizabeth's marriage to Edward. After fighting for years in the Wars of the Roses, Losing their father in battle, Taking the crown from the Lancasters and dealing with betrayal from both Warrick and brother George, their was no way in hell that Richard was going to allow the ambitious Woodvilles to just take power. Had Elizabeth had her way, her Brothers, and Sons(from her previous marriage) would have all gained valuable positions. Richard's titles, holdings and very own life would have been in jeopardy had he allowed this power grab. Once he quelled this including killing Anthony Woodville, the Uncle Edward was most familiar with, Richard knew if Edward or Richard were crowned King they would exact vengeance on him. Richard would lose his head. Killing the boys was the only thing Richard could do to save his own life.

@charlesfaure1189 3 года назад

Yep. The whole story of the Wars of the Roses reads like a story of mafiosi struggling over a territory.

@radboy707 3 года назад

@@charlesfaure1189 So basically George was Fredo in Godfather2. "Edward IV - "George I know it was you, you broke my heart". hahahaha

@mathrodite 3 года назад

Ludicrous to still call it a mystery.

@banbean2050 Год назад

Great Channel, so glad I found it, I think your commentary and voice is excellent, doing a major binge watch at the moment, thank you

@its_cyfa 3 года назад

Yes I also think RichardIII was responsible. As with Richards most recent exhumation the 4 potential skeletons should be tested to 1. Establish the sex 2. Establish their age Perhaps then the boys might receive a proper and just funeral Love your content btw, I use it to teach my son's about medieval history better than a text book.

@xxtoxicduckyxxx318 3 года назад

Typxuoooyyooo

@mariealexander9545 3 года назад

l read that the Queen will not allow a DNA test on the 2 boys skeletons that were found in the white tower but they are interned some where in the abbey

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

@@mariealexander9545 probably it is her ancestors but it’s not like the worlds not aware of the horrific things royals get up to & always have

@amybaum2722 3 года назад

@@mariealexander9545 what reason is given for the refusal?

@mariealexander9545 3 года назад

@@amybaum2722 the Queen refused the DNA testing she felt it would set a bad example for the future

@johnrowe3192 3 года назад

I really like the information! I have always been a fan! Good!

@tmfromdenmark9158 3 года назад

Poor boys. 😢

@donaldwesterhazy9333 3 года назад

Ocham's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one, hence Richard III gets my vote as the instigator of the murder/disappearance.

@WyattRyeSway 3 года назад

Same.....it just makes the most sense

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

I agree, there’s no logical reason for putting them in there! All that was asked of him was to look after them till Edward v came of age. And declaring his brothers children illegitimate, why? The only thing Richard did was put an end to the Plantagenet line.

@tukicat1399 3 года назад

Neither their mother or the new king said he did the deed.. if they thought he did, i am pretty sure they would have blamed him after his death.

@WyattRyeSway 3 года назад

@@tukicat1399 ....so who do you think is the culprit?

@tukicat1399 3 года назад

@@WyattRyeSway there are thoughts on Buckingham, even Henry himself.. the point is no one knows and no one pointed any fingers after Henrys marriage to Elizabeth, even to Richard who would have been a convenient scapegoat. Matt Lewis a Ricardian Historian on you tube has put together a compendium of ideas.. very interesting.

@geion54 3 года назад

I think Richard had them dun in, he wasn't called Richard the turd for nothing he was a nasty piece of work.

@howardsmith9342 3 года назад

Richard got a lot of bad press after his death by Tudor writers who were eager to support Henry's right to the throne. But he probably knew what happened. They must have been murdered. If they died of natural causes their deaths would have been publicly announced, just so everyone knew there were no other pretenders to Richard's throne.

@jeandehuit5385 3 года назад

Correction: Nasty piece of *York* Personally, I think the fact that the crime was covered up points to Richard's having done it. I mean, if anyone else had killed the King's nephews (who were under his protection on his property), there would have been hell-to-pay; whomever was responsible would have been tried, attained, & executed. Instead, it gets quietly covered up. Heck, the blame isn't even pinned on the traitorous rebel Buckingham, even tho. he had access to the Tower of London (as one of the King's favourites) in the fall of 1483, *just* b/f the boys were last seen alive. Richard has the perfect scapegoat in Buckingham, and yet... he didn't use it. That tells me Richard *really* didn't want anyone looking into it. & if he didn't want anyone looking into it, then he was probably implicated in some way.

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

@@jeandehuit5385 absolutely for me it’s Occam’s razor. He killed anyone who could use the boys in a power move against him, he killed rivers (Edward v’s closest companion) & his men for imagined conspiracy, he killed Hastings for imagined conspiracy & parliament didn’t even regard it as treason as he didn’t even have his regent powers yet never mind being king but he beheaded them anyway & ppl stopped disagreeing with him. All his brother asked him to do was rule as regent till Edward v came of age, Richard sullied his brothers memory declaring his children illegitimate, all Richard really did was wipe out any Plantagenet that mattered or could’ve challenged Henry vii’s reign. Even if Henry was an outright bastard with absolutely no claim to the throne, so was William the conqueror. They both won it by right of conquest!

@markoarkaina8656 3 года назад

They could still turn up, don't give up just yet.

@BA-gn3qb 3 года назад

The kids were playing Hide and Seek with the guards. And . . . Nobody has found them yet. So, they are still hiding.

@ShallowApple22 3 года назад

It always makes me question why there were only impostors claiming to be Prince Richard & never King Edward. As there were 2 children who disappeared but after summer 1483 there is zero mention of Edward.

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

And even Lambert Simnel was first pushed forward as the younger, Prince Richard, before then claiming to be Warwick. Henry paraded the real Warwick in London, at St. Paul's, and this kept the nobility from defecting to the Earl of Lincoln, who could never forget that Richard had made him his heir, after the King decided Warwick unsuitable as an heir, though impeccable as a prince of the blood. Lincoln had accepted pardon and a place on Henry's Council. But he saw his chance. And he knew very well the Princes were dead. After being deposed, you are the walking dead, even if declared illegitimate, even if you abdicated. Edward the Eighth, in the 1930s was the first King allowed to retire. Edward II, Richard II, Edward V, Jane Grey, Mary Queen of Scots, Charles I, were not allowed to retire.

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

Not a reply, but a p.s.: I forgot poor Henry VI. If Richard oversaw that, it was because Edward IV ordered it. Even the Ricardian Paul Murray Kendall said the same. Richard doing that on his own is unthinkable.

@anneb4160 3 года назад

I think Richard was responsible for the murder of the princes. First he declared them illigetimate. But later on he came to the conclusion that this would not be enough to save the throne on a permanent basis. So he decided that the princes have to be killed. From his perspective it was simply necessary to maintain his power.

@johnallen8368 3 года назад

We have always known it was Richard 111 because of the delay in coronation a decent guy doing the right thing would have had Edward V coronation done then been regent for a few years. What an evil ***

@thatswhatisaid8908 2 года назад

Not so. Parliament made him Protector, but only until Edward v was crowned. At that time there was only 7 weeks until the coronation date.

@BHuang92 3 года назад

I feel kinda bad for the princes, made unwitting pawns in a hostile political time. Whatever fate they might've received, its quite tragic in either of the circumstances.

@TheUntoldPast 3 года назад

I would agree with you definitely! It's a tragic story and they definitely were pawns caught up innocently. Thanks for your comment.

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

And there’s accounts by Edward V’s priest that he was praying constantly & almost preparing himself for death, he’d probably been educated on his dads reign & how the throne was constantly changing between Edward iv & Henry vi. I wouldn’t be surprised if he knew exactly what Richard was up to. A 12 yr old back then, especially one being groomed to be king, would’ve so much more mature than a 12yr old nowadays

@cbgranger11 3 года назад

Pure and simple, they got wacked....

@annnee6818 3 года назад

Very likely yes

@tritosac 3 года назад

This story almost reminds me of Flowers in the Attic. Keeping children locked up because they are deemed illegitimate or unwanted is very sinister. I wonder if all these figures of history are now burning in hell for the terrible things they did to humanity.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

I'd say so. Ive often wondered the same.. They thought they had a right because they were kings appointed by God to rule. I think they thought God gave them a free pass. Boy were they wrong.

@ambermaccraig7316 3 года назад

I just subscribed to your channel bc I do so enjoy watching these videos about the tragic end that the ppl face, for educational purposes. I find the voice of the narrator comforting and interesting to listen to and that is very important w these types of videos. I agree w you completely about Richard III being the force that drove the disappearance of the boys. Like you said, at the end of the day you'd have to be blind not to see the advantages that he had w them out of the way. Let's face it, Richard Duke of Gloucester, did have the most to gain from the princes' deaths and it's HIGHLY likely that he is "responsible" for their fate, however I do not believe that him becoming king of England was a forgone conclusion in his mind. I do believe that initially he planned on fulfilling his dead brother's wishes and stepping in as Lord Protector for Edward and Richard. Tragically I think that over time along w bad choices, on his part, step by step he truly thought that the only way to survive was to do away w the boys. This mini doc doesn't mention that the MAIN reason why he had Earl Rivers arrested along w his companions on the trip to London was because he was advised to do so by Lord Hastings ( who was in London at the time and privy to everything going on politically, a very influential courtier and one of the best friends of the late king) plus to come to London w a large force so that he could defend insults that had been made towards him and to protect him against such accusations. It puts his actions against Rivers and his "abduction" of the prince in an entirely different light. This example is just one of many actions Richard took that is misunderstood by so many thus making him look like a vengeful tyrant right from the start and not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure Richard III was guilty of MANY horrible decisions and actions but I DO believe that some of those made were done so for mere survival not just ambition.

@eslermanu47 3 года назад

Without doubt Richard was involved pity modern science cannot get the skeletons and find out if any of them were the princes.

@dejaporter7338 3 года назад

This is particularly sad not ever knowing what happened to those poor boys 😔🥺😢

@annnee6818 3 года назад

@@DarrellWingerak Henry Tudor is also a pretty good suspect. Richard might have thought declaring them illegitimate was enough. So we don't actually know at all. Which is frustrating

@ShallowApple22 3 года назад

I tell you what’s strange is that Richard didn’t investigate but neither did Elizabeth Woodville and only a short while later allowed her daughters to court with Richard & came out of sanctuary back to Groby this has always made me wonder.

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

And how would Elizabeth woodville go about investigating her sons disappearance. Do you think anyone would’ve been honest with her had she made enquirers, he disgraced her, declaring her children illegitimate. It was Richards job as lord Protector to find out what happened to his “beloved nephews” Does Elizabeth going to court tie in with all the bs about her supposedly going to marry Richard? If so, that never happened!

@ShallowApple22 3 года назад

@@lyndsaycrawford seriously she was queen dowger and had many many important people who held high ranks within Richards court as loyal followers to her faction. She was amazingly adapt and intelligent . My point was if she believed Richard had of killed her boys she w opulent have sent the rest of her children to his court. Sanctuary wasn't a hardship to her when protw ting her children.

@ShallowApple22 3 года назад

@@lyndsaycrawford where did I even mention the Elizabeth of York marrying Richard? That has norh ijng do so with this narrative

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

@@ShallowApple22 My apologies for being curt & assuming regarding the rumours about Elizabeth of York & Richard iii I honestly thought you were going down that romanticised notion of the whole white princess saga & sorry for underestimating you! I don’t doubt for a second Elizabeth W was resourceful, cunning & intelligent (& very beautiful which may seem irrelevant now, but women had to use whatever they had in their armoury) but that’s probably why you would never hear of her investigating her sons disappearance. I believe any diplomacy between Richard & herself would’ve been a case of survival & protecting her remaining children, sanctuary didn’t help her when Richard III wanted prince Richard & perhaps she was trying to curry some favour with him so to appear that she didn’t suspect him, if that makes sense? If he did do it & he suspected her of investigating, it wouldn’t bode well for her, for anyone it must’ve been anxious perilous times. Even if she didn’t believe he was responsible for her sons disappearance/death he still declared her children illegitimate, her husband a bastard, her son was destined to be king, all her children royalty, assumed they would have royal marriages & good lives Richard turned her world upside down. Not to mention the woodville’s he’d already killed in service of young Edward. And as you’ll know, court was a pantomime, everyone acting chivalrous & demure on the surface but a cesspit of lies, secrets, dirty politics & much worse & maybe that’s exactly what she needed to get to those in Richards high ranks. Idk I’m speculating. We’ll never really know.

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

I don't they had a lot of choices. To have any future, they had to come back to the royal court. However they extracted a public oath from Richard that the daughters would receive honorable marriages and that they, specifically, would not ne kept in the Tower of London. Remember, too, that Elizabeth Woodville's son Richard Grey, and brother Anthony Woodville, were killed by Richard on his path to the throne, without trial, unless you regard the Earl of Northumberland's announcement of their death sentence at Pontefract a trial. They also didn't place boundless hope of rescue by Henry Tudor, seeing that the rebellion of 1483 had failed. They needed that oath from Richard.

@user-ns3vs3bp3e 2 года назад

My question is why was there ever a disappearance? It’s not like disease was rare and children were very susceptible, just claim both boys have fallen very ill and then a few weeks later have a doctor proclaim them dead from X. You can then claim the throne with nobody questioning it too much, just having them vanish makes it way more suspicious.

@kevinanderson4445 3 года назад

gloria commenting; raphael holinshed provides the clue. Young richard was taken from sanctuary to the star chamber - where his brother was waiting for him - and then both together were taken to the tower of london. DURING THE REIGN OF RICHARD 3RD THEREWAS NO STAR CHAMBER. THE STAR CHAMBER WAS ESTABLISHED BY HENRY V11.

@pbac9570 Год назад

whenever I see images of them they are holding hands or appear very close. I don't think I've ever seen other princes from those periods acting like that.

@trisgilmour 3 года назад

It’s a crazy and sad story

@Ramiiam 3 года назад

You have Thomas More's account in addition to the circumstantial evidence. That's as close to certainty as we are going to get.

@Terri_MacKay 3 года назад

Thomas More's account was written years later when Henry VIII was king. He was hardly going to implicate Henry's father, Henry VII. It makes absolute sense that he would place the blame on Richard. More's account is not contemporary, and, in fact, there are no contemporary accounts accusing Richard of their deaths. The accusations didn't arise until decades later, under Tudor kings. Since the princes were declared illegitimate, they were no threat to Richard's reign. However, they and others were certainly a threat to Henry VII, who had a very tenuous claim to the throne. In fact, Richard stayed friendly with the boys' family, and many of them continued to live at court. I hardly think that this would have been the case had he killed the boys...he would have wanted the Woodvilles as far away from him as possible, as they would have been very dangerous enemies to keep around. I will admit that there is a strong possibility that one of Richard's men killed the princes, without being ordered to do so, thinking it was what Richard wanted.

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

Thomas More and his father had no love for Henry VII. The elder had been jailed and fined for arguing against a tax in Parliament that Henry wanted. Thomas More had access to people that he trusted as reliable sources, as he states early in his account of Richard's march to the throne. This was unpublished until 10 years after More's death! Why would you do this, if it made such wonderful propaganda? By then Henry the Seventh, and the Eighth, were dead. The fate of the Princes was a matter of common knowledge, or indifference, save as another reason to find the Tower scary.

@annnee6818 3 года назад

That account is a novel. It's not contemporary plus has Tudor bias.

@edwardviofengland8048 3 года назад

Ahh yes my great uncles!

@michaelserfort8128 3 года назад

Impossible to ever clear it up...even if I ask today myself who are the two child skeletons that were found later....

@AngeloPerfili 3 года назад

Yesssss......

@crazydougfam 3 года назад

Even though Richard iii and parliament declared them illegitimate they would still be a rival to the throne which he knew could not continue. Henry vii is also of an illegitimate line so saying they’re no longer legit and therefore not much of a threat is clearly misleading. Fact is he had control and motive and even though there’s no proof he is the most likely culprit with the most to gain and also opportunity. It’s very unlikely Richard didn’t have a roll in their disappearances.

@Ramiiam 3 года назад

Richard III got what was coming to him at Bosworth Field. Unfortunately Henry VII and his spawn were worse.

@smithamy1982 3 года назад

If Richard III didn’t do it, why didn’t he say anything when they disappeared? Why didn’t he look for them? They were in his care when they disappeared, never to be mentioned by him again, obviously because he was at fault at least by negligence if nothing else

@generalnapoleonbonaparte3186 3 года назад

Richard III Was in A Tough Position if it Was Confirmed That The illegitimate King Edward V Was Alive People Would Try To Overthrow Him and Restore The illegitimate King Edward V To The Throne Of England,if he Didn't confirm That The illegitimate King Edward V Was Alive People Would Think he Killed Him And His Younger Brother Richard Which Could Cause Problems For Him Later On Which it Did in The End!The illegitimate King Edward V Was illegitimate BECAUSE Edward IV Entered into a Legally Binding Contract Which Meant That He Legally Only Had One Wife His First Wife.It's Just as likely that It was Henry 7th That killed the Princes,to Claim The Throne!HENRY VII Was Willing To Use Any Means Necessary to Gain the Throne!

@gothmamasylvia462 3 года назад

I think it was Richard III. He had the most to gain from it. He may not have done the deed himself, but had it done. Why he betrayed his brother in having his sons killed only Richard knows for certain. As a king, Richard III didn't reign that long, but was not a bad king overall. But the outrage of his apparent actions damned him in the eyes of England in those days.

@raniou. 3 года назад

Richard of Gloucester: you’ll be kept in the tower along with your brother until your coronation, your highness. Meanwhile, I got some business to tend to at court, k? 👍 Edward V: yes, my lord.......... **yo that’s hella sus hOL up-**

@heskrthmatt 3 года назад

2:48 The funny thing is given the circumstances of Edward IV birth, they had a point.

@charlesfaure1189 3 года назад

Yep--though he was an usurper regardless of his birth. But birthright comes second to Right by Battle. Always has.

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

This is ridiculous that ppl say Edward IV was illegitimate. His father was gone at most 5 wks. You realize a pregnancy can last between 37-42 wks? You can’t work 9 months backwards from someone’s DOB & pin point their conception Gynecologist can’t even do that now! He could’ve been born early, late. Do you really think Richard duke of York would have excepted Cecily’s bastard as his son & heir. This is propaganda to belittle Edward iv’s son legitimacy even more. Even IF it is true, like you said he won the crow by right of conquest anyway but obviously with Yorkist support (& Warwick) he was actually avenging his father, or step dad or??? Pure shite & just another case of ppl reaching!

@trapset1539 Год назад

Dark, Bloody and Sinister.

@oliverpony 2 года назад

Richard III: 🎶I was sure that you’d love me To that hope, I did cling ‘Cause I’m… Richard the Third And… Everybody loves a king! Thought I did a good job Why do you disagree? There’s a lot of people Spreading nasty rumors about me Every word is a lie So I’m singing this song ‘Cause the history books Have been telling it wrong! I never had a limp Always walked my full height Never had a hump And my arm was all right Never took the crown With the illegal power Never killed my nephews The princes in the tower Tudor propaganda It’s all absurd Time to tell the truth About King Richard the Third My brother Edward, died His kids too young to rule So… I took the throne Why not? I’m nobody’s fool! Thomas Moore wrote a history Said I’d murdered Edward’s boys Shakespeare said their death Was an evil ploy But I say those two Are historical vandals! They’ve ruined my image! I mean, what a scandal! Never bumped off Those harmless young heirs Never buried them Under the Tower of London stairs Never poisoned my wife Bumped off her daddy This is me, sweet Richard Do I look like a baddy? Never was two-faced Sure you’ll agree I was misunderstood King Richard three Can you imagine it? I’m the last Plantagenet Beaten by Henry In the Wars of the Roses The Tudor dynasty Didn’t care that much for me Now I’m painted as a baddy That’s why one supposes… Never forget When you hear of my crimes Never drowned my brother In a massive vat of wine Never said "A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" Who made that up? Why, William Shakespeare, of course! Now my tale is told You won’t hear a bad word About a special ruler King Richard the Third🎶

@SnapSceneStudios 3 года назад

nice

@PInk77W1 3 года назад

What happened to them ? Their security sucked

@johnentwhistlesurelysamsun1840 3 года назад

It would be a great help if they could examine the bones contained in the urn in westminster abbey, they where last examined in 1933, and with todays technology ,DNA espiecially we could be nearer the truth, but that would't really help in the long run in establishing who was really involved, a DNA examination of the bones would merely establishor could establish if they are those of the princes as there is still some doubt cast on this, king charles 2 certainly thought they may have been when discovered in 1676, in 1965 they discovered the remains in stepney of Anne mowbery wife of Richard Duke of york the younger of the two princess, and thats another story worth a read!

@michelleseager9782 3 года назад

Such greed.

@henkstersmacro-world 3 года назад

👍👍👍

@zebdoz333 3 года назад

Well common sense says Richey was guilty !

@generalnapoleonbonaparte3186 3 года назад

It's Just as Likely That It Was Henry 7th That Killed The Princes,To Claim The Throne! HENRY VII Was Willing To Use Any Means Necessary to Gain the Throne!

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

Used as figure heads for a rebellion against Richard iii! York vs York. That would be a totally different war of the roses. Those poor innocent boys were murdered by/because of Richard iii’s ambition. Why would he declare them illegitimate? Ambition was a deadly, ugly thing back then. You wonder how long he was waiting for his beloved brother to die to put his plan into action. I don’t think Henry VII (or his mother) had anything to do with it. All it did was cos Henry headaches with pretenders turning up left right & center. But all Richard really did was end the Plantagenet line (of any importance) On that battlefield! You reap what you sew Richard

@jameskingston4075 3 года назад

Who gained? The princes had been declared bastards, removed, and Richard crowned, he had little to gain from their deaths. The Beaufort line was explicitly barred from succeeding to the crown by an act of parliament due to being illegitimate, and Henry Tudors only real link was that his grandfather had married Henry V's widow, a pretty tenuous connection at best, though if he was the last man standing it didnt matter too much. Buckingham needs to be examined more closely, he talked with Richard before the Stoney Strafford meeting, again before Hastings was executed, and then staged his own rebellion.

@belladingdong3396 3 года назад

I think the older brother got sick with the plague and died or was killed by Richard III. I think Richard then let the other boy "escape" with the agreement he'd never try to claim the thrown. Richard probably had some empathy for his nephews and probably thought that if they were declared illegitimate, nobody would back the bastard second son of an invalid marriage. I think Perkin Warbeck was probably actually Richard, duke of Shrewsbury, and I think Henry VII knew that. Henry obviously had a lot to gain by maintaining the image that Richard killed the boys, but really I think Richard either gaffed their treatment, or tried to do the "lesser evil" but just killing the main threat to his claim to the throne and tried to be merciful by letting the other of his nephews, live.

@belladingdong3396 3 года назад

It could also lend itself to the treatment of Elizabeth Woodvile by Henry VII. If they had agreed to keep the image up that both boys had died, it would secure his claim, which she could have potentially used as leverage to get him to marry her daughter and join the houses. "I'll be quiet about my sons and about Richard Duke of Shrewsbury still being alive, if you secure my daughter's and grandchildren's future success. Otherwise you'll be implicated in the death of Edward V and deposed, with the title of usurper and king killer twice over."

@belladingdong3396 3 года назад

Alternatively, her treatment by Henry could be seen from the light that they both knew, and had contempt, for Richard III, and were unified in their hatred of the man, leading to Elizabeth Woodville's fine retirement, gifts, and pension paid by Henry VII.

@HistoryLover1550 Год назад

The mystery shrouding the fate of the Princes in the Tower has been one that has held a gripping fascination for me, especially following the discovery of Richard III's bones and the contrast between the real man vs the fictional, deformed, psychopathic villain. Still, that does not mean he could have had his nephews murdered for fear of dynastic usurpation and keeping "illegitimate" blood away from the throne. In reality and fiction, he would have had a lot to gain with his nephews out of the picture. It's just the evidence we have so far is not concreate. I would look more closely at either James Tyrell (whose confession is quiet questionable) and/or the Duke of Buckingham as the main suspects, if there actually was foul play involved. Henry VII is also probable if not a stretch as far as possible culprits in contrast to the main three. The likelihood one or both of the boys were covertly spirited out of the tower (with or without Richard's collusion) and the cover story of their deaths invented is reasonable albeit a slim one, especially within royal families. Nevertheless, a reexamination of the supposed bones of the "princes" needs to be conducted most definitely. It will answer some key if not all questions that have long circled about the disappearance of these two innocents.

@lindatimmons3675 7 месяцев назад

Queen Elizabeth would never allow DNA testing on the bones but however King Charles 111 might .

@phoeberose8231 3 года назад

Skel-e-tons. not skelingtons.

@slytheringingerwitch 3 года назад

I do believe that Richard the Third was ruined by those sucking up to Henry VII. If the boys had been declared illegitimate then Richard had no reason to murder them but because Henry VII wanted the throne he wanted to ensure that his claim was accepted.

@neilstone4226 3 года назад

Richard was long dead by the time Henry was crowned. Sucking Up? I don't think so.

@neilstone4226 3 года назад

All the more reason to suspect Henry and his evil mother Margret's involvement in the Princes murder then?

@slytheringingerwitch 3 года назад

@@neilstone4226 Yes, sucking up to Henry VII, agreeing with his opinion and wanting to remain alive.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

Illegitimate means nothing. Henry Tudor was Illegitimate & banned from taking the thrown but he became Henry VII.

@hawkmaster381 3 года назад

Occam’s Razor in effect.

@gap9992 3 года назад

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Richard III for me! Motive, opportunity, circumstantial evidence etc. I don't think any of RIII's supporters would have acted without his authority

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

Me too! Occam’s razor for me! Too much shit just doesn’t add up & I’ve yet to hear a logical explanation for Richard doing all the things he did. Most “explanations” are really weak & just sound like ppl are clutching at straws

@neilstone4226 3 года назад

Who will rid me of this Meddelsome Priest? Read Up.

@brutielee9717 Год назад

Those boys were my 20th great great cousins.

@charity6372 2 года назад

...if it quacks like a duck...

@elizabethspedding1975 3 года назад

I hope when students have to learn online, their lessons are as good as your videos. Thanks again for another wonderful peace of work. I think the murders were committed by those wanting to rid England of male Plantagenets. I would look towards HenryXIi, and maybe his mother.

@donaldwesterhazy9333 3 года назад

Mister narrator, a question - Speaking of Richard III, who do you consider to be the last Plantagenet king, Richard II or Richard III?

@TheUntoldPast 3 года назад

I'll go for Richard III, and not only because there's a local pub not too far from me called The Last Plantagenet, which is conveniently located a few hundred metres away from where Richard's remains were found.

@donaldwesterhazy9333 3 года назад

@@TheUntoldPast Yes, I agree, Richard III. Wish I were near that pub.

@TheUntoldPast 3 года назад

@@donaldwesterhazy9333 It's recently shut down, was owned by a British chain called Wetherspoons who are famous for cheap food and beer!

@alancoe1002 3 года назад

@@TheUntoldPast that sounds like a pretty good reason. I would respectfully suggest that, although Richard the Second was the last undisputed King of England, oddly enough, I have read (but, where?) that Richard, Duke of York, father of King Edward IV and Richard III, was the first to call himself Plantagenet, as his last name. Henry the Second was known as Henry Fitz-Empress, strange as that sounds to our modern ears.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

@@alancoe1002 thanks for the info y'all

@dreamjackson5483 3 года назад

#testthebones

@wendyboothman294 3 года назад

They were not in the tower when their father died

@gypsydildopunks7083 2 года назад

The Spin Doctors?

@lindatimmons3675 7 месяцев назад

MY SUSPECTS ARE Richard 3rd, because hes the one that had the most to lose if thay didnt disappear. 2nd guess is Margaret Beaufort because she spent her whole life fighting to get her so. Henry 7th on the throne. I never suspected Henry 7th himself but the last few years i do. Queen Elizabeth II would never allow DNA done on the bones found under the stairs but it is posdible King Charles III will allow it so this can be resolved and the boys bones be put to rest properly. Theres an opera singer that is a direct descendant of Elizabeth Woodville that is willing to submot her DNA for testing but Queen Elizabeth would never ok it. It is now a decision thatbKing Charles III will have to make. This REALLY needs to be solved and those boys may rest in peace now. Please i hope King Charles will allow it.

@widowrumstrypze9705 3 года назад

What was with Henry VII's *hair* tho??

@prophet9702 Год назад

Richard actually wasn't king, but he was Regent. (as making decisions for the country.)

@prophet9702 Год назад

Richard Duke of york was actually 8 at the time too.

@emzybenzey 2 года назад

Skellingtons 🤣👍

@alisonegan8151 2 года назад

What’s a skelenton? 🤣🤣🤣

@sealthrob 2 года назад

By far the one who had most to gain by their death was Henry Tudor who in reality had no claim on the throne because he was of illegitimate line as had been declared the Princes. So the Princes claim to the throne was much stronger than his own because of closer to the legitimate line. Richard was the legitimate King and the boys were much less of a menace to him than many adults who would usurp his place with or without using the princes. And that is what happened in the end. The thing is that Henry Tudor argued in favour of his attack against Richard III because he was an usurper and why was he usurper? Well because the Princes. So once he had gotten rid of Richard III he had to turn over the throne to the Prince, because he could not reasonably argue that they were illegitimate. There was only one way around it, kill them. All historians recognize that Henry was a paranoid ruler. Perhaps it was a very heavy conscious and the fear of divine judgement that made him so. The constant fear that there may be someone just as ruthless as himself.

@savagedarksider5934 Год назад

Richard III was A usuper; he had the most to gain in case of their death.

@sealthrob Год назад

@@savagedarksider5934 Not so. They had already been declared illegitimate. Henry VII waged war on Richard III alleging their legitimacy. He himself had no claim on the throne because he was of a bastard line. If they lived he would have had to declare the eldest king since his argument for rebellion was their legitimacy and his wife had no claim to the throne either if they were legitimate. So the one who had all to gain from their deaths was Henry VII. Richard was a legitimate King there is no questioning that. There is good documentation to their illegitimacy and it had already been declared by the Bishop who was the legitimate authority to decide on the case. You can deny it till your blue and that wont make it less true.

@savagedarksider5934 Год назад

@@sealthrob I don't give A Rat butt what you or some bishop says; he killed the princes because as long as they live they would always be A threat. Richard III was A no good usuper-Who stole the crown from Edward V;He got what he deserved at the battle of Bosworth. And I'm not gonna to read all of that crap.

@mdtalhaansari1096 3 года назад

Oh, princes, not princess. I thought it was Rapunzel. I watched it anyway.

@leticiagarcia9025 3 года назад

Richard the third or Henry VII had good reasons to kill the princes in the tower.

@MamtaSingh-il4lk 3 года назад

It was Richard the iii

@leticiagarcia9025 3 года назад

@@MamtaSingh-il4lk There’s still more we don’t about the fate of the Princes. Historians still debate their fates. Some say there’s no definite proof that they were murdered. I have read many books on this topic. Although I believe Richard III got rid of them, I won’t give a definitive answer. This by no means makes me an idiot. I found David Starckey’s new evidence intriguing. He put more weight on James Tyrell’s confession that “supposedly” he murdered the Princes under Richard III’s orders. I have to see proof. The most idiotic people are the ones who say Many Beaufort killed them. They confuse history with historical fiction.

@jaytek74 11 месяцев назад

Game of thrones...

@PawelSorinsky 3 года назад

Richard wasn't responsible, it was Margaret Beaufort.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

I kinda lean that way too

@joesteers1940 3 года назад

Richard was not politically prudent at all. Similar to his father. He walked himself into a situation where very politically experienced people like Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth Woodville and John Morton seized on an opportunity to bring him down. Richard almost certainly ordered their deaths , whether considered illegitimate or not they were dangerous to have alive if Richard wanted to be king. At the end of the day though Richard was not really any better or worse than most medieval kings. Edward IV ordered the death of his own brother , Henry VII kept the child Warwick in the tower for life then had him executed. Henry V was immensely cruel , needlessly slaughtering the citizens of Caen. Henry IV usurped his equally cruel cousin Richard II, both of them great, great, great grandsons of the brutal Edward I.

@neilstone4226 3 года назад

So would it not be politically prudent for Margaret Beaufort to have had the Princes murdered to stop them challenging her Beloved Son Henry becoming King?

@kkandsims4612 3 года назад

I honestly think Margret was innocent of this

@beth7935 3 года назад

Hear hear!

@suecolclough1268 Год назад

Don't think Richard did it. He had need to kill the boys as boys were blasters . More likely to be Henry .

@michaelbaughman4017 3 года назад

Poor Richard III ! There is a shadow of a Tudor in all this. Henry VII had a lot more to lose then Richard III.😷🌻

@gdhse3 2 года назад

Hopefully when the current Queen passes on, legislation can be passed to have the DNA tested. Because there's so many people who want to know. Actually, we all need to know the truth! Stop concealing what the public should know!

@Pugiron 3 года назад

Since Elizabeth 2 is not blood related to the Princes, why should she care?

@th3radlad_727 3 года назад

She is. Henry Tudor had Plantagenet DNA in him which would pass to the stuarts, Georgians, Victorians and then the modern era to her

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

She is of that bloodline

@neilstone4226 3 года назад

Nowhere does anyone mention Margret Beauford. Read her life story before dismissing her part in the Deaths of the Princesses. Certainly at the top of the list of the list. Mother of Tudor Henry 7.

@lisaenglert3202 3 года назад

Innocent boys. What a time to be a royal! What a horrible thing to do, esp given the religious climate at the time. Not very Christian is it?

@peternesbitt 3 года назад

Richard also tried (and failed) to marry his niece Elizabeth Woodville Jr. What kind of creep does that? He's nothing more than a murderous gangster who got his comeuppance at the Battle of Bosworth field. Good Karma.

@craigbenz4835 3 года назад

Henry VII wasn't one to leave loose ends. My money is on him rather than Richard III.

@lyndsaycrawford 3 года назад

Henry didn’t set foot in England till the boys were well & truly dead!

@craigbenz4835 3 года назад

@@lyndsaycrawford : We don't really know that.

@MedievalRichard 3 года назад

Richard III had no involvement in their killings and was all Henry VII doing. He was also king at the battle of Bosworth and was so till he was slain that day, despite what Henry had wrote after. He spotted Henry Tudor from his vantage point at the battle, charged towards him killing Sir William Brandon (Henry Tudor's standard-bearer) instantly in his way, hacked loads more of Henry's army and nearly got to Henry VII in doing so! The ultimate way to go out like a king, a true king who was a victim to Shakespearean misrepresentation in years to follow! MR

@davesmith7432 3 года назад

Of course Richie 3 did it or had his button pushers do it. If there is such a thing as hell, he’s sitting right next to Henry 8.

@k.stewart007 3 года назад

What was the boys material uncle executed for? In what way were the boys deemed illegitimate? Who produced evidence of this? How secure was the evidence?

@generalnapoleonbonaparte3186 3 года назад

KAREN STEWART King Edward V And His Younger Brother Richard Were illegitimate BECAUSE Edward IV Entered into a Legally Binding Contract Which Meant That He Legally Only Had One Wife His First Wife, All of his Children From His First And Only Legal Wife Had Died After They Were Less than 1 Year Old Due to Diseases.

@mrbiggs6818 3 года назад

Have yall ever thought what if the princes really were illegitimate? Besides Edward IV being actually illegitimate, the timing of his "first son" was really convenient 🤔 it definitely wasn't above a king back then to do that (take Henry VI and Prince Edward for ex), could be a family secret that only a select few knew about.

@sunneinsplendour8459 3 года назад

Lady Margaret Beaufort had a lot to gain from the princes being dead. Her and Lord Buckingham. They have my vote.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

Mine too. I always lean towards her. She would do literally ANYTHING to make sure Henry took the throne.

@sunneinsplendour8459 2 года назад

@@wvmountaingirl1976 yeah her son literally had to walk past five coffins to get to the throne.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

@@sunneinsplendour8459 Yelp & I also realized Elizabeth Woodville had 4 sons, Richard III (If it's found to be true) killed 3 of them. I'd of figured out a way to take him out ya know.

@sunneinsplendour8459 2 года назад

@@wvmountaingirl1976Richard 3 had Richard Grey executed yes. But... Richard 3 appointed his nephew, Edward, the 4th Earl of Warwick as his heir after his legitimate son, Edward of Middleman, died. And let's be honest, the Earl of Warwick had a better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor who was the descendant of John of Gaunt by his mistress, Katherine Swynford. So he came from a line of bastards. Not even to talk about the fact that his "claim" was through his mother. And Edward 4's children had been declared bastards due to the nature of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and the claims that Edward was himself a bastard. Richard 3 was already the anointed king. Those boys didn't pose a threat to him. They were however a threat to Margaret Beaufort who, as you said, wanted nothing more than for her son to usurp the throne.

@wvmountaingirl1976 2 года назад

@@sunneinsplendour8459 your right. Wasnt't R3 DNA tested & he wasn't legitimate. I could of sworn I read that somewhere. H7 line was barred from inheriting the throne & Earl of Warwick most definitely had a greater claim than H7