How do you think Henry VI died? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling Remember to SUBSCRIBE to my channel too.
I feel sure he was done away with for the reasons you give, and also because the Yorkists didn't need to keep Henry alive once his son was dead. Clearly, the vigorous and alert young Edward would be a much bigger threat as a claimant to the throne than his dingy Dad. However, I think EIV and Richard would have wanted Henry's death to be bloodless if possible, in part so they could display an undamaged body to the public (I'm influenced here by Conn Iggulden and other novelists) and in part because they would not be guilty of shedding his blood (as I think you mentioned in the video about the drowning of their brother George). Why would they have an open coffin if he'd died a bloody death?
I believe he was murdered by Edward IV. I don't believe he did the deed himself. It was probably under his order. I think he was stabbed. Richard too would want him dead. I'm leaning towards Edward though.
I never thought I'd be considering an idea of Philippa Gregory's but here goes. I just finished watching "The White Queen'' on Starz, having signed up in anticipation of viewing "Becoming Elizabeth." She has the three York brothers enter Henry's room during festivities. George and Richard pin down Henry by the legs and waist while Edward takes a pillow and smothers him. So all three work together against a common enemy, as they've done all their lives, and take the blame and responsibility for Henry's death equally. Killing a king is not really something you can safely delegate to others; it would put you in their control. This scenario makes dramatic and logical sense to me.
A later comment mentioned that they thought he might have gone into a catatonic State as he had twice before. I would like to expand on that, purely in supposition, that he might have had a brain tumor that brought on these states. Depending on where the tumor was and how large it was, he might have had a stroke when he was told his son was dead due to the tumor. Therefore, he might have died a natural death. This would also explain why some (one?) sources said that he died of shock after being told the battle was lost and his son was dead. What do you think?
Despite years of fiendish historical nerdom (with a degree to prove it), I must say that there is simply no other channel I'd visit for this information. Especially not the big ones. Your thorough examination of sources and common sense commentary always keep me on the edge of my seat. Thank you so much for your work. I find now that if I have a burning question about the Cousins War/RotR or the Tudors, I'll scroll until I see one of your videos. You are amazing!
Aww, thank you so much. That's very flattering. I'm not immune to mistakes sometimes of course (particularly given that the videos need to be out every week), so of course I still encourage you to do any extra research you might feel is necessary.
Great video, very detailed. One note on Richard Duke of Gloucester is that he was Lord High Constable of the Tower from the time Edward IV regained the throne. So Richard was in charge of the Tower at the time of Henry VI's death. I've often wondered if it was this reason that gossip assumed he was responsible. Just as one would think that Richard would not have murdered an anointed king and his cousin without Edward IV's knowledge, one would think such a murder would not occur in the Tower without Richard's knowledge--or if it had, that the Lord High Constable would hang those responsible promptly to ensure justice was seen to be done. But of course the Yorks may have simply thought it best to not to acknowledge that an anointed king and cousin had been murdered while in their custody and decided to put about the story of death by melacholy. Obviously public gossip did not believe it. Say what you will, the Wars of the Roses is never boring.
I think George would be a more likely assassin than Richard. Nothing could be done without Edward's permission. There were rumors that Edward of Westminster was captured alive but executed by George.
If Henry was such a bad king how come he was housed at Waddington hall for 12 months in relative safety? The house also went to ruin and they inscribed the message "upon this ruin we raise his ashes." They later rebuilt the entire hall in his name. It seems like a lot of effort for a failed king.
Had he been killed before his son was dead, then Prince Edward would have become the Lancastrian King and he was a much more popular and charismatic figure than his father and could have rallied greater support. He also wasn't under the Yorks' power, whereas Henry was and could therefore be controlled.
@@HistoryCalling so was it more about honoring his line not necessarily Henry himself? It just seems odd to house a bad king for 12 months then rebuild the hall in his honour nearly 300 years later.
Was he murderd we have no proof, it's a possibility he was murderd the means and whom did this deed again we have no proof, as with Richard's part in this that is open to debate, logically I think he was murderd how and what means I haven't a clue, welcome back HC hope you enjoyed your well earnt break.
Henry VI cause of death was accidental. He was accidentally (and quite erroneously) named king at the age of 11 months old. From there, his reign was a series of dreadful accidents of history (exacerbated by his appalling ineptitude). This culminated in his accidental death when his head inadvertently got in the way of a cudgel, swung by an understandably annoyed operative of Edward IV
"Who brings a pig bone to a disinterment?" 🤣 love it. I think this is probably another one of those "mysteries" where the gossip is more dramatic than the truth. Side note: I feel like we should be paying tuition for these videos! Quality work.
Thanks Laura. Yes, the pig bone certainly suggests some bits of Henry were removed for relics. Bits of the Princes in the Tower were gone too (and animal bones left in their place).
@@HistoryCalling Perhaps the people doing the disinterment got hungry, had pork for lunch and did a poor job cleaning up after themselves? In all seriousness though, I agree. The animal bones were likely left behind to cover for bones that were taken as relics.
Yup! The missing arm & teeth were probably used as relics. My reasoning for that is the very fact that at the beautiful York Minster, Henry VI’s statue had to be replaced as people were treating it as a shrine & pilgrimage, maybe taking away bits of that statue & claiming miracles were taking place there.
A body will eventually “purge” fluids even with the most modern and intensive embalming methods, and it’s not uncommon for this to happen a day after, which could either have been mistaken for bleeding or just how it was referred to at the time. As far as I know, wounds don’t tend to bleed post-mortem, but I’m no expert! At any rate, it alone doesn’t really prove or disprove the matter. Great video as always!
@@HistoryCalling When my uncle, who was a big guy, was in his casket, he started "sweating" out the embalming fluid. It was creepy! The funeral director came and closed the casket and ushered the people into another room so he could fix the problem which was simply wiping the face and reapplying the makeup. It looked like he was sleeping and sweating on a hot night. I'll never forget it....
yes, corpses don't bleed, they leak, bc you can only bleed with a heart beat. And they can leak whether or not there is a wound. They will leak out of any orifice.
Honestly, I think Henry VI went into another catatonic state upon learning of his son's death. Those charged with telling the King may have even been brutal with the news adding horrific detail. They may have hoped the King would take shock and die on the spot. It was not unheard of in those days. Instead he zoned out like he did all those years ago. Edward IV and/or Richard may have thought, not again...and smothered Henry. A dagger may have been slipped between the ribs to hurry the death along. Yes, I think Henry was mudered.
That does seem like a plausible theory to me. Like, Henry had been known to go catatonic in moments of extreme stress so being told that his son was dead, his wife a captive, and all hope of regaining the crown lost forever could definitely have been stressful enough to trigger a breakdown. The only thing I would say was that I imagine Edward would probably have been planning Henry's death anyways because he was simply too dangerous to keep alive as recent events had shown him.
A vague theory but along similar lines, he could’ve had an accident or been set up to have one, hit his head or something when going catatonic. I’m rather intrigued by your idea of it being spur of the moment frustration and something less violent, it seems very sensible
The idea that he dropped dead for some reason is just too convenient and unlikely. Killing a king isn't something that just anybody could do, even in those days. Access to Henry would have been strictly limited, possession of weapons would also have been controlled. His gaolers would have been pretty careful too in case they were implicated. This act of violence against a king could only have been done by either Richard or by Edward himself. The risks were just too great for anyone else to do it. Not forgetting that Henry was also in direct line to the French throne through his mother Katherine of Valois. There had to be French interest in his preservation, in case anything went wrong there ( he was supposed to be king, but again usurped). It is difficult to see anybody else as a possible murderer. Motive, means and opportunity all lay at Edwards' door as being ultimately responsible. Keeping your enemy alive wasn't really an option in those days either.
Actually, Im not so sure, the French wouldve been interested in his preservation due to his claim to the French throne, rather the opposite. As u say, he was supposed to inherit the French throne as agreed upon in connection with the marriage between Henry V and Katherine of Valois, but the French, not surprisingly, went back on their agreement after Henry V's death shortly after. I would think, that as some1 with a close bloodline and a legally valid claim to the French throne, the French would actually be fine with him being out of the way, and with his son also dead that would neatly end that possible threat to the French king. The only reason, I can see, for the French being interested in keeping Henry alive, would be, if u ignored Henry's claim to the French throne and viewed him solely as an English king, then the French would be just fine with having the English wars over their throne continue, all the better for the French.
@@dfuher968 I think the French would have been interested to some extent as a) it is always good to have an alternative up your sleeve ( so to speak) b) he was married to Margaret of Anjou so there was more French connections there, even if her son was dead, she could still have had an advantageous influence. I still think the buck lies with Edward 4th.
@@cindysuecox1 While I would not quite use the word "definitely", what you state certainly looks to be the case. Edward IV would have felt he had no choice unless he wanted to risk losing the crown again.
In fairness to Edward IV, if he did order Henry VI to be killed it’s because he had wanted to eliminate the threat of the Lancastrians once and for all (he spared Henry years early and look what that lead too.) With Edward of Westminster dead, King Henry (aside from Henry Tudor) was the last Lancastrian and would always remain as an object to rally around for future rebellions if left alive. Edward II and Richard II were also not immediately killed after being deposed, but there were attempts to free them and their respective usurpers knew they would not know peace and security if the former king remained alive.
@@HistoryCalling Exactly, plus Jasper Tudor was still active in France and could of continued the Lancastrian cause for his half-brother/cousin instead of his nephew Henry Tudor, so even though the Lancastrians were defeated they were not wiped out.
I think he left Henry VI alive the first time because Edward of Westminster was alive. Far better to have a frail, mentally unstable rival than a young healthy one. Once Edward of Westminster was dead there was no reason to keep Henry alive.
It was a common belief in the Middle Ages that the body of a murder victim would bleed in the presence of the murderer. Maybe the claim that Henry’s body bled after death was meant to bolster the assertion that he was murdered.
Of course he was murdered. Archaeological evidence of his body dug up in 1910 revealed blood on his head with physical damage to his skull, suggesting that he did indeed meet a cruel death at the hands of someone else.
Yay for History Calling Friday! It seems far too convenient for Henry to have died of natural causes. Edward would have been behind it, though I find it unlikely that he did the deed himself. I find Richard to be a good candidate for the murderer because Edward was his brother and they probably wouldn’t want a lackey to be able to say he killed Henry. As for method, I really can’t come to a conclusion. Blunt force trauma to the back of the head and stabbing both seem plausible. If he was stabbed, it would have had to have been somewhere covered by the funerary linens or whatever they dressed him in while in the open casket. Great video, as always! Have a great week!
The timing suggests a deliberate act. The broken state of the skull (given that it was described as thin) could have been accounted for by bodily pressure and therefore implies that Henry might have been asphyxiated under bedding or a door. Bodily pressure might have caused the bone damage or at least cracked the skull sufficiently leading to further break-up well post-mortem. Asphyxia has advantages as it might have been regarded as 'not regicide' in that it did not involve spilling the king's blood. Edward II suffered an alleged self cauterising wound in the rectum. Richard II may have been starved or poisoned. Given that the Yorkists wanted him gone and gone quick asphyxia is my best bet. Barry Slemmings
Short answer. Yes, yes he was murdered. But to be fair, (especially for those brutal times) Edward kept him in captivity for years, until it became impossible to let him live to keep uprisings in his name keep happening. I’m sure the populace was relived to just have some peace.
You're probably right about the pronunciation of the Croyland report being Crowland. As someone that lives near the village of Crowland in Lincolnshire there is an Abbey. (All in ruins really. ) And I haven't heard about a place called Croyland in the UK but I could be wrong as geography isn't my strong suit! My opinion, based on the information in this video, is that he was murdered.
The Stewarts had the WORST luck with that. And Richard II's reign wasn't the best, to put it mildly- at least Henry VI didn't turn into an arrogant power-hungry tyrant.
True he didn’t become a tyrant but I’ve always been lead to believe he didn’t really do much. As said in the video he let others rule in his name. I’d actually argue that an absent king is worse than a tyrant in ways. A tyrant, you’ll have even a rough idea what sets them off. An absent? It’s down to whoever’s got the power that day.
Brilliant! Agreed, his death right then was just waaaaay too convenient, & the likeliest culprit was the one who immediately benefited most, Edward IV- just on his orders, not with his own hands; my guess is a loyal but relatively lowly servant willing to do it in hopes of reward, who met with a sad "accident" soon thereafter, but Edward _was_ king & in charge of everything, including the Tower. I can't see why on earth Richard would do it- what motive??- or be asked by Edward to do it personally.
@@HistoryCalling You also think it'd be a convenient lackey? Cool, I wasn't sure if my guess was way off! Yeah, I might think Richard was most likely responsible for the deaths of his nephews- with the same reasoning as above, & also just giving the order- but I don't think he was "evil" & responsible for every murder that occurred in his lifetime. This & stuff like supposedly poisoning his wife IS just unfair blackening of his reputation.
I've always thought Richard could very well have done it. It had become obvious that it was too dangerous to have an ex king hanging around, just too much bother. Regarding Richard III, I really don't agree with people who believe he has been maligned unjustly
He might have, but I hesitate to lay it at his door due to the lack of any real evidence. Certainly though, I think he is rightly blamed for what happened to his nephews.
I don't think he was totally evil, but Richard III definitely was opportunistic and ambitious. Regicide is a very tricky business and was normally carried out by the highest ranked individuals in that society. So it makes sense that Richard III and Edward IV were involved, and most likely in a physical way. Now the idea of Henry IV might have been in a catatonic state and was killed for that reason is interesting. I have always felt that the Tudor "press" (rumor mill) was playing damage control with Richard the III. During his reign, you could not say a bad thing about him, because that would be treason. So while there was gossiping and whispers, very few people would have dared slander a King or his family. When the Tudors came into power, they wanted to discredit Richard III, so they went all out..(When in fact the truth is probably much more in the middle, than being far left or right or pro Tudor/ pro Lancastor bent. I mentioned it earlier but the one thing you don't discuss here is that being caught with documents even as a courtier saying the King of England or one of his brothers was guilty of Regicide would have been treasonous and a reason to be executed. Even speaking such a thing in some places would have been risky. So it does make sense that the writers during this time period weren't coming out and accusing them of murder. It was somewhat (though not completely fool proof) to say, the rumor is "xyz" or I heard that "xyz" happened but I don't really know.
If it was Richard or Edward they could have just ordered someone to do it, it makes no sense for someone at such a high position to kill a political enemy by their own hands, it’s just risky and unnecessary.
@@charles_capet321She does bring up the excellent point that it would not have been deemed right for a commoner to kill a king. That gives the commoner's ideas. The same thing happened with Elizabeth and Mary of Scotland. Elizabeth hesitated to have her executed because she did not want people to know that a prince could be executed. Remember later at Charles I how all of Europe and a lot of England was shocked that they executed him. It was unheard of.
I'd like to throw out a theory, for which I have no sources and have never read of, that maybe it was George (Clarence) who killed Henry on the orders of his brother Edward. He was the second eldest and as Edward had not had any children yet, he was Edwards heir. And we know how hungry for the throne he was.
Your research and grammar is usually spot on, but I do disagree with your conclusion that Hope's lack of medical training means his conclusion that Henry died a violent death is highly doubtful. Hope's lack of medical training meant that he should not assume that the matter on Henry's hair was blood, yet that does not nessecarily mean that his conclusion was incorrect. He may in fact have been correct. Hope's conclusion should be taken as possibly incorrect, but not "highly doubtful". Semantics, I know, but I feel it worth mentioning.
The controversy and historical sources concerning Henry VI's death is always all over the place. Everytime medieval and modern sources are made there's always so many varied accounts or some kind of lie, deception or omission. But History Calling I'm inclined to agree with you concerning the fact with what happened to his wife and son, and the warring factions between Yorke and Lancaster during that time it's implausible that he died peacefully. Edward IV wanted to eliminate any threat to his rule being that he was deposed once by Henry VI's forces In 1470.
Yes, I think murder is the most likely option too. Edward was a pragmatist and really not sentimental at all. I mean the guy had his own brother executed (though George really had it coming).
@@HistoryCalling you're right. Edward IV really was. George Plantagenet Duke of Clarence sure was the middle brother between Edward IV and Richard III. Edward IV sure did have him executed in 1478 because he did an act of a traitor and sided against him with the Earl of Warwick.
@@HistoryCalling Edward IV really was. George Plantagenet the Duke of Clarence sure was the middle brother between Edward IV and Richard III. Edward IV had to execute George Plantagenet in 1478 because George became a traitor when he sided against Edward IV with the Earl of Warwick.
This is quite a mystery, and a true challenge for historians. Could he have been poisoned? Or is poisoning too "easy" to suggest because it can't be proved or dis-proved?
Yes it sorta is. Poisoning someone is super hard and back then super obvious . Ed wanted it quick. He sent a goin squad in to club him to death and that was that. Richard didn't do it. Eddy ordered it. And it's really pretty simple I have an 8 year degree specifically between 500 and 1500ish and this is razzle dazzle history. Any real historian will roll Thier eyes and sigh. No biggy you need views I get it but it's like saying did the Pope poison JFK. Like of course not he'd have hired some random first off and second he was very clearly shot in the head. But your right he COULDVE been poisoned.
Look at it this way. There's way way too many ways poisoning could've gone wrong. Dosage is hard. Too many variables down to what he's eaten. Eddy wanted it done done. He was very much over the bullshit by then.
If I recall correctly, sometimes inconvenient prisoners of aristocratic or royal blood were starved to death because it didn't require an overt act like poisoning.
The idea that Henry VI only heard of the death of Prince Edward when Edward IV arrived in London, with Queen Margaret as a prisoner, strikes me as unlikely. The battle of Tewkesbury was fought and Prince Edward killed on May 4th, and Henry died on May 21st, the day the victorious Edward arrived in London. He must surely have heard or worked out that his son was dead, or at least suspected so. The idea he collapsed with a fatal stroke or heart attack at the news seems improbable and only suits Yorkist propaganda. Dispatching Henry was unfinished business after Tewkesbury. Richard of Gloucester may well have been sent to the Tower to get Henry killed - he does not necessarily have to have performed the deed himself as he does for dramatic and symbolic effect in Shakespeare’s play. Edward IV ultimately and Richard proximately must be seen as accountable. The Yorkists were not fastidious and not slouches in getting rid of their opponents.
Yes, the idea of it being a natural death is too much for me to swallow as well. As Henry was in the custody of the Yorks, I see them as ultimately responsible too, no matter who actually did the deed.
Please note a "Glaive" is a form of weapon on a pole, originally a farm implement but the time of the WotR had developed into the Swiss-army knife of medieval warfare the pole-axe and the billhook. Henry's passing could have been due to natural causes but I think you are correct. The timing was extremely convenient. I know it is not verbatim but William Shakespeare's "Tragedy of Richard III" starts with that very scene of Henry's open coffin being translated to Chertsey and an irate Anne Neville, Henry's daughter-in-law and Richard's future wife, pretty convinced who the perpetrator was. Richard is condemned by history and his brother Edward gets a "free-pass". Edward capable of political murder? A young Edward had already ordered the execution of Henry VI's Step-father at Hereford. Edward ordered the execution of Lord Richard Welles, a one-time ally, at Stamford. I also cite someone you have only mentioned briefly in one of your videos and only by the mention of his wife, Anne of York, Edward IV's eldest sister. I refer to the staunch Lancastrian Henry Holland the 3rd Duke of Exeter. Henry had been badly wounded and left for dead at Barnet, the same battle Warwick had been killed in and from where wounds caused, Lady Margaret Beaufort's second husband would perish. Remarkably Henry survived and made his peace with his brother-in-law Edward IV whose star (sic) was rising. Conjecture is the relationship wasn't great and Edward had Henry pushed overboard crossing the English Channel. Henry sleeps with the fishes. Could Edward have done the same to poor old Henry VI? He would later order like for his own brother-in-law? Regards, Titus.
i do think that if he was murdered, edward iv has to have at least approved of it, in the same way that richard iii must have approved getting rid of the princes. they were both kings in these situations- if they hadn’t wanted murder, it would not be a mystery. in a way, i think both alleged murders can be linked. richard would have only been 18 at the time of henry’s death. watching his older brother (who he was apparently very loyal to) depose of a king so that he could have the throne would no doubt have set a precedent in richard’s mind. with this in mind, i can only conclude that yes, the brothers were responsible for these deaths in each respective situation. i don’t think edward PHYSICALLY did it himself though- if he sent anyone, his loyal younger brother would be the obvious answer. a non-family member would have been too risky, and it wasn’t likely to be george. so, richard kills a helpless king on his brother’s selfish orders- wouldn’t be surprised if that created a psychological link for him that led to him ordering the deaths of his nephews.
I agree about Edward, but remain puzzled by the notion that Richard, whose claim to the throne did not require the boys' death, who would have been blamed for it even if they had died of natural causes, and who would have been equally threatened whether they were alive or dead as long as they were not known to be dead, "must" have had them killed. The Duke of Buckingham had better motive and equal opportunity.
Funeral arranger here. Even with modern embalming techniques and chemicals.. it only takes one poorly embalmed part of the body part to appear that the whole thing look and smell poorly.
It's interesting when people say that Edward usurped the throne from Henry VI considering Henry VI was the grandson of Henry IV who usurped the throne from Richard the 2nd. Who also conveniently died after losing his throne.
I would like to offer an alternative theory. So, it was well established that Henry VI had mental health issues, and he had had a mental breakdown almost two decades before he died. The death of his son and capture of his wife and daughter in law may have caused another breakdown. God forbid, maybe he killed himself or he wasn't given proper care during his latest mental health crisis. Either way, it would have been a scandal, because it would be caused by negligence on the part of the Yorks. Idk, so many of the accounts just seem like slander more than actual testimonies of the truth.
Oh, he was definitely murdered and Edward and Richard were behind it. If I had to place a bet I’d say Richard did the deed. There’s no way in the world (back in those days) that they’d have allowed a former King to remain alive. Is there any documentation about Margaret’s opinion on how Henry died? Another great video and thank you for your hard work!
I think he may have killed himself. He would have known he wouldn’t be allowed to live long, and probably knew that it wouldn’t be a peaceful death, so took matters into his own hands.
He had been in Edward's custody previously, only to be placed once again on the throne thanks to Margaret ... the whole thing had just dragged on so long with see-sawing dominance and it was necessary to bring it to an end by finally get rid of a weak and destabilising king.
So glad to have you back with another superb video. Hope you enjoyed your holiday. Regarding Henry’s death, the “brothers Lancaster” just have way too much verified plotting to doubt they (all or some) had a hand in Henry’s death (at least in ordering it). They would have certainly believed in the political necessity at this point. But, the idea of in-person regicide is not something I can get behind. Ordering, yes, physically doing, not so much. Even though they believed their claim to the throne was better than Henry’s, the fact remained he had inhabited it so I believe they still would have viewed the physical murder as some level of regicide and would want to at least have plausible deniability. Agree, we will never know the specifics though…too many conflicting rumors. On the where, no idea. As the plaque in the tower chapel was probably part of the general Tudor whitewash or later. As always, your videos layout the most verifiable facts, identify rumors and let the listener decide.
Yes, I can't imagine them doing it with their own hands either. That would be unnecessary and rather stupid in my opinion. Better to have some lacky do it who could later be thrown under the bus if necessary.
I'm not sure he was murdered. He may have been, but he may also have died from a heart attack or a stroke, which gives no previous symptoms. If he was killed, I do not think Richard was the perpetrator. Putting the blame on him us more likely a later Lancaster attemt to put him in a bad light.
If I recall, anthropological evidence of his body dug up in 1910 revealed blood on his head with physical damage to his skull, suggesting that he did indeed meet a cruel death at the hands of someone else.
This is very interesting. If so many people are saying that Richard the Duke of Gloucester killed King Henry VI then it’s quite possible. Richard was a very ruthless person when it came to gaining power. This just may be the first royal he killed or had killed.
Ah, but no one really said that until much later, so are we just being influenced by Tudor propaganda, which was itself influenced by what happened to the Princes in the Tower (who I think R3 probably did have killed)?
Ruthless? How many scores of thousands died and were maimed because Henry would not abdicate? When high born enemys get captured in battle they get executed. Both sides did it...... a lot.
For years Edward IV had been keeping Henry VI in the Tower as a pet pretty much. He was only kept alive IMO because Prince Edward (H’s son) and Queen Margaret were still at large. Once Prince Edward was slain at Tewkesbury, Henry’s stay as a better-kept member of the Royal menagerie was obviously going to be ‘ended’. I think that Richard of Gloucester was probably tasked with informing H6 of his son’s death to make E4’s official line of death from melancholy look more plausible. It wouldn’t be difficult to convince everybody that an 18-year-old freshly returned from battle and overseeing the execution of prisoners afterward would lack a bedside manner. Whether RoG wielded the dagger or not is debatable. Killing an anointed king was not a trivial matter in those superstitious times but then if RoG didn’t do it that only really leaves E6, whom no source that I know of places at the Tower at the time. I speculate that H6 went into another catatonic state brought on by the news of his son’s death and the outcome at Tewkesbury and was ‘mercy killed’, so to speak. Who wants an incapacitated pet in their menagerie?
@@charles_capet321 But then, as in classic mystery stories, they have to worry about the discretion of their appointed assassin. However, I don't think Henry was necessarily murdered.
For Glevys if it helps Gleffe (glavîn , glevîn , glavîe , glevîe , glëve) in medieval fencing manual (circa 1430 we think) is a the word for lance/spear usually you see it in a riding context but you see it in armoured combat on foot as well.
I tend to follow the Bard when it comes to speculation about the Wars of the Roses - he was a few generations closer to events than even the best modern historian - 🛸✨
I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for (he was right about RIII's scoliosis for instance) but also not as good as some others would have us believe. It all comes down to what sources he read/heard before writing up his plays.
@@HistoryCalling - he was a very good amateur historian and had access to still circulating living memories of events I expect - he also had at least some little talent expressing himself of course so his version of events correct or not are rather lucid compared to trying to read Raphael Holinshed who Shakespeare relied on a great deal for English history
I agree with you he was killed, We're just not sure who did as you gave several good reasons of could have done it or who ordered it. Hope you had a great time off.
I think Henry was murdered. It makes sense that Edward IV would want to end the war by killing any Lancastrian heirs. He couldn’t kill Henry VI while his heir was free, but once Edward of Westminster was dead Henry could be killed too. Edward ordered it, Gloucester over saw it and I think method of murder would have been something that didn’t leave a mark, like smothering, so Henry’s body could be displayed (so no further rebellions could be made in his name). If Henry was smothered, it’s a physical act, it could require quite a lot of strength, not to mention the mental capability of killing someone known to be gentle and innocent in life (more than one person may have been needed?), I can’t see someone like Gloucesters status doing that. I think it’s a great story though, the idea that Gloucester would do it for the house of York and for revenge maybe!? Who knows maybe Gloucester blamed Henry VI for the deaths of his father and elder brother and the civil war he endured as a child.
Yes, I think that is a very plausible analysis of the Yorks' motives and means and R3 did indeed have what we would now call a traumatic childhood, though few people ever really mention it.
THANK YOU so much for your very generous donation Kathy. Yes, one of the reasons I selected Fridays as my upload day actually, was that I thought/hoped it would be a nice end of week treat for people :-)
Can you find out why two of the small arched windows on the upper floor of the Tower were bricked up? I have contacted the Tower of London through their web page, but got no reply, and have asked other historians the same question but still have had no replies. Could you find out and maybe do a video on what the reason was for doing this. I would appreciate it being I love English History especially medieval time period. Thank you.
I'm sorry. I don't know which windows you're referring to. There's probably a very simple explanation though. Buildings were always being altered and modernised to suit the times and it may be that those windows were just felt to be superfluous to requirements at whatever time they were closed up, or maybe they were causing unwanted draughts.
It's possible that he died of grief but I think it more likely that he was killed. I'm not sure what the legal precedent for having him executed would have been but leaving him alive would have left Edward open to further issues. I don't think it likely Richard the 3rd personally did it, purely because of his station, but there's some sense in having your trusted relative do your dirty work.
I don't think an English King had been executed yet at this point. They'd died in battle, in accidents and been almost certainly murdered (thinking Richard II here), but I think Charles I was the only one to actually be executed. It certainly would have been a very bad precedent to set (as was murdering the monarch).
Poor Henry, he was just not up to it, was he? The line of madness that came across from France with one of the queens was debilitating. I know probably Richard did it for Edward ( who wants an ex king hanging about) but I sometimes feel that Richard was an expedient scapegoat. A man’s favourite hunting hound died and probably Richard did it. Some reports are so convenient ( same these days with the media) , add in Shakespeare and bobs your uncle. Not so much defending Richard as playing devils advocate. He had to be made out to evil for expedience sake. Bodies don’t bleed after death. Red embalming fluid? Never heard of it. 👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
I don't know how good the embalming at that time was, so I wouldn't rule out some leakage, but it wouldn't have been bleeding in the normal sense (with a heartbeat pumping out the blood). I've heard of modern cases though of a little bit of blood coming out of an embalmed body (though through the nose).
I’ve always found it funny that Henry Bolingbroke overthrew a king Richard, and then an Edward overthrew a Henry, and then a Richard overthrew an Edward, and then a Henry overthrew a Richard. It’s just the same name back and forth lol
Richard killed many people! Henry VI, baron Hastings, princes of the Tower, to name a few... He was ruthless however his hopes of establishing his line fell flat after the death of his only son. Soon after Richard was killed and never buried as a king. Justice ☀️
@@HistoryCalling his infamous demise points to the fact that his kingship was a charade. A despicable man who betrayed - was betrayed himself and forsaken. The hunchback broke moral standards of then knight-culture and was silently hated by men and women whose families he devasted. I hope they found solace in how the Divine Will worked out 😌
@@mw6267 I think you need to watch the documentary about the discovery of Richard's body. He wasn't a "hunchback". I'd also recommend you enrol on a fantastic online course offered by Future Learn "England in the time of Richard III". You might change your opinion ...
@@clareb8015 "Hunchback" isn't a medical condition, merely a term used at that time to describe someone whose back isn't straight. Richard had scoliosis, but that didn't exist as a medical condition, so people would've described him as a "hunchback", cos his scoliosis was severe. "Hunchback" is an insulting term, agreed, but it's not insulting to say it's an accurate description in the unkind terminology of the time. For me, it's what I admire about Richard- he became an incredible fighter despite a severe & painful physical condition that'd make fighting hard in lots of ways, & beat men who had none of those issues to overcome.
I’m sure that Henry was murdered but of course after all this time no culprit can be named. He was a weak king & although it had far reaching consequences he was got rid of.
@@HistoryCalling stranger things have happened. There is plenty of suspicion to draw a conclusion that he was killed so that Edward would have no more claimants to his throne
so good seeing you back, hopefully you got some relaxation time in on your break! i’m with you, i’m going with murder, it’s crazy to think how different the world would be today had he not lost the throne.
I've always wondered about the " strong Arms " of Princes . Most seem to be little known and many are anonymous now. ( Maybe a good subject here.?) I have to agree... it seems unlikely that any person would risk their life to help the Prince out of his dilemma by killing anyone of higher rank without orders. And the timing of Henry's death is just too convenient. Even if you're a supporter of Richard III, you have to admit not noticing the disappearance of the boys is carrying the old belief " Children should be seen and not heard " a little far. Through-out history , along with rumors we have the accounts of people " in the know" who really are not. I'm reminded of CIA agents inside info... that I found to be wrong. They assumed what they heard had to be correct because they were important people. Thanks for the Mystery. Good to have you back.
Yes, the timing is what really does for it in my opinion. Had Edward even waited a few weeks to have Henry killed I think there would be fewer fingers pointing at him, but I suppose he was worried in case Henry was broken out of prison.
Further to my comments awhile ago I am always struck by the enigmatic phrase that Henry died of “pure displeasure”. The question that invites is whose. Was it Henry’s “pure displeasure” at the news of the death of his son and heir, the last direct hope of the House of Lancaster, or was it Edward IV’s “pure displeasure” with Henry for still being alive? The phrase is as I said enigmatic. One senses the writer raising his eye brow as he penned it. Henry’s death is just too convenient for it to be coincidental or accidental. The fact that a significant popular cult developed around him in the ensuing years suggests that his subjects, whatever they had thought or experienced of government in his name, felt sympathy for him and saw in him a victim, a kindly intercessor and that he was not useless. Dead he might be, but believed to be still helpful to those in need. Such a cult often arose from what was perceived as an unjust or irreligious slaying of a good person. If Edward IV ordered the killing ( as is much the most likely cause ) then he created a popular following for Henry that lasted into the sixteenth century - Henry VI as a royal martyr was if not a threat a living rebuke to the Yorkists. With Prince Edward and virtually all the leading Lancastrians dead Henry was no threat at all. Which brings us back to “pure displeasure” at his continued existence.
There seems to be a great deal of evidence for the proposition that Henry VI was murdered. I think Edward IV must have decided he had no other choice, and probably directed his younger brother Gloucester (Richard III to be) to either arrange or personally carry out the deed. Sometimes the "popular gossip" rings true. It does so for me on this occasion. (Those who argue that Richard would not have been capable of contracting the murder of his nephews later should presumably find all this problematic).
👏👏👍 Whoa, HC! Storming back from your brief hiatus with a slam dunk! Great video; I was swept up and yes, it was one of your longer videos but as I was hanging on to every word it didn't matter. I hope your time off was restful and rejuvenating. Welcome back. Oh, and I absolutely believe Richard III was involved somehow. Somewhere in the void his evil spirit is declaring, "YES! I did it...and I'm GLAD!! (Just kidding). See you next week! 🙏🏼
If he had anything to do with it, you couldn't say that Richard murdered Henry VI any more than you would call an executioner a murderer. If the king ordered it, then it was legal. You obeyed your king in those days. So for people to say that Richard was a murderer, and that's even if he was involved, is not correct. The idea that Richard was even involved bothers me because of the heavy-handedness of the tutors in blaming him for everything. They even said he killed Henry VI son when he wasn't even there. They probably would have blamed him for the Black Death!
Just want to pop in to say thank you for your riveting content. I have been listening to massive (embarrassingly large) amounts of your videos this last week + and I very much enjoy doing it. I am NOT at all an auditory learner, yet I can follow your voice, cadence, and narrative very well despite my difficulties. I hope you keep up the good work with your commendable humility, friendliness, and interesting pronunciation of “w” for a long time to come. 😂 Thanks so much!!! I will check you out in Patreon soon.
Edward IV had Henry VI killed. Somehow Edward was just fine, but Richard has been charged with killing everyone. It is highly unlikely that Edward had his young brother kill the toppled king. Eduard,Margaret of Anjou’s, was most unlikely to have been Henry’s son. There was no contemporary rumor that Richard had anything to do with it.
Personally I didn't think there was enough sources for anything to be really known about Henry VI's death beyond that it was in the tower, sudden, and likely a result of foul play on Edward's part due to the timing. My only thought would be if we could look at the bones again and thus be able to have a forensic expert examine them could we ever really know how Henry died for sure. A stab wound or blunt force trauma to the head would leave behind evidence on the bones whereas a natural death as reported in the time would likely not.
Please note Henry VI was wounded at 1st. St. Albans by having an arrow in the neck! No conjecture about that! Apparently the Yorkists apologised for that when they took him prisoner. Perhaps forensics saw that too.
Yes, another examination would certainly be interesting (assuming there are bones left and not just dust), though I admit I'm generally against digging people up just to satisfy our modern curiosities.
Yeaaaaahhhhh, way too convenient. Sure, coincidences happen, but the simplest answer fits best here. Edward and/or Richard likely saw this as the best opportunity to kill Henry and cement their claim. With young Edward dead, Henry was the last clear Lancasterian left (as I recall, could be wrong though), and with his mental health history, "dying of shock" is possible (still mad suspicious though). I doubt very much that either Edward or Richard did it with their own hands. A trusted henchman or disposable thug serves that task well, and gives them (semi)plausible deniability.
henry VI of lancaster was the grandson of Charles VI Valois, both had *periods of madness & challenging-turblent civil wars from their incapcity to rule...* the armgnac-burgundian civil war, during the hundred years war,. also the hidden illegitmate house* beaufourt... that connects more than 10 other families during war of the cousins, roses is often totally overlooked... as for closely related cousins, commiting *regicide* or the death of annoited king, it is almost in a pattern of history, william II,....edward II, have very mysterious deaths... also during any european monarchy* the periods of regency, regents are little or ever, disscussed , let alone , the reason why a *regent is actually needed ? henry VI was a young boy, when his father Henry V died , likewise for much of his own reign.,. there were periods of regency , especially by his *beaufourt* uncles.... and his york cousin.... yes the plantagenets, long before Edward III had a *huge family* , with many many cadet branches, more than half the nobility in england... big shock the house of capet in france & valois were their relatives too... henry VI was crowned as king of england, and seperatly as king of france, in opposition to his french cousin .... * english history* is often seen or viewed in a remote bubble , in ancestery genalogy , big suprises and shocks arise.. . henry VI of lancaster was related to half of europe, via his many many relatives... also his wife magriute de anjou, was yet another distant cousin...., the messy period, of king richard II who was not a lancaster or a york... to Henry VII tudor... with plots and rebellions happening pretty regular, prehaps the biggest illusion of history is, that any king during this period , is viewed as stable, even henry V had the lollard disconent & the southhampton plot, as we all know agincourt victory , rather than Battle of Castillon 1453 is mentioned, the house of valois were truimphant, the plantagenet dynasty only then held calais... this must have made henry VI of lancaster, tip over the edge... Charles VII ( 1403 - 1461), the Victorious ( le Victorieux) he is not called it, as a joke, it was for the battle of castillon 1453 the final english defeat during the hundred years war...
Considering they could have easily strangled him or smothered him, why in the world would anyone use a knife to kill him when that could easily be seen when people view the body. That was just plain illogical for people to say.
I would suggest they didn’t bother embalming him. If he was murdered & his body and burial treated with disrespect then why would they bother going to the trouble of embalming him? This would also explain any lost fluids as unembalmed he would’ve decomposed a lot quicker. May also explain lying in an open coffin only 1 day as he was getting on the nose! As far as the reports of who and how he was killed? There’s a lot of here say especially years after his death. Sadly like enhanced portraits and inaccurate busts of rulers to promote their athleticism & might, we’ll never really know as there’s so much embellishment and political manouvering by sycophants & challengers to the Crown who want to ensure a smear campaign ruins reputations and garners support.
My belief, though I fully admit that I could be wrong, is that Henry VI was murdered on the orders, or at lease with the acquiescence, of Edward IV. Similarly, I believe that Edward II was murdered, as were the princes in the tower. Using which methods and precisely by whose hands I have no specific opinions in any case. I gather that the quiet murder of prisoners was not uncommon elsewhere or for prisoners of lower status, so it hardly seems to take any stretch of logic to think that it would have been done in any, or all, of the aforementioned cases.
I definitely believe Henry was murdered. It cannot be that convenient for Edward that King and heir, Warwick and Allies all dying at roughly the same time.
I think Henry most likely died of natural causes. Like his grandfather Charles VI of France, he suffered from episodes of madness. He clearly had also suffered a good deal from reversals of fortune in his lifetime, and at times had lived as a fugitive; I can't believe he would have been in a very robust state of health. I think it quite possible that the death of his son which meant the end of his line, might have driven the king to despair and shock sufficient to cause death. Although it was convenient to Edward IV that Henry died when he did, it is also a very likely time for a person who had suffered what Henry had to have died of misery and despair. There is also nothing that would be acceptable as real proof in a court of law. Common gossip frequently attributed the death of anyone notable to murder, and this might have been especially true of a king held prisoner in the Tower. (Not that all rumors of such violence were always unfounded!) All the evidence reported was of a hearsay nature, as admitted by some of the writers themselves. It's not impossible that the king was murdered, but there is very little, it seems to me, to prove it. If it was murder, it's not impossible that Richard III might have been involved, but there again there is little but suspicion to support his participation. Pro-Tudor propaganda and the ex post facto belief that he was responsible for the deaths of his nephews in the Tower clearly have at least something to do with associating him with the crime, if there was one.
I know I'm late to this party, lol, but there was a common belief in the middle ages that the body of a murdered person would bleed in the presence of their murderer. The statements in near-contemporary documents about Henry VI's body bleeding at various times may have been a reference to this belief and the common belief as to whom the murderer(s) was/were, and not a recording of an actual sight of fluid leaking from the body. Just a thought.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Henry described as kind before 🤔 I thought he was known to offset his incompetence with a tendency for spite & grudge holding. What a winning combo! Lol Thank goodness the times wrapped this type of thing in “piety” 😂
I have wondered for several years, and without any evidence whatsoever, if Henry 6th actually was the father of the baby Margaret produced. Always felt that the pregnancy was convenient. But I wouldn't blame her It must have been a grim, joyless marriage for her
Doesn't the queen have to give permission to run any forensic tests, including DNA? If I'm wrong, please let me know the procedures for queries of this nature. (Seriously).
Here is a thought, if he was killed what if he wasn't actually dead? With the accounts of bleeding makes an intriguing thought that he wasn't embalmed but that his wounds were dressed and that he was in a state of near death but our villain had him buried alive? I know it sounds more like a plot from a bad novel but sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction.
Is it not possible that he was poisoned through his life as child so that as an adult he got seizures so others around him in the court could continue being in control of the country even when he reached adulthood after all they had plenty of time to slow poison him
It’s good to have you back! This can bounce back more than ping pong balls! Killing a king was serious stuff, but if you needed and wanted it bad enough, you found a way. Richard could have done it. Was he on his way to the throne himself? No one knows
Thanks Amy. Yes, it is disturbing how many members of that family killed (or supposedly killed) other members. By the time Henry Tudor arrived in England, there was hardly anyone left between him and the throne. He only had to get through one guy!
And no one ever will. But Edward had a vested interest in removing him. Maybe his wife cast a spell! I appreciate all your work on this. Your head must have been spinning after all the accounts, who wrote them, etc. I love history and this is a part of it. I vote Edward, why not?!?!
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
How do you think Henry VI died? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling Remember to SUBSCRIBE to my channel too.
I feel sure he was done away with for the reasons you give, and also because the Yorkists didn't need to keep Henry alive once his son was dead. Clearly, the vigorous and alert young Edward would be a much bigger threat as a claimant to the throne than his dingy Dad. However, I think EIV and Richard would have wanted Henry's death to be bloodless if possible, in part so they could display an undamaged body to the public (I'm influenced here by Conn Iggulden and other novelists) and in part because they would not be guilty of shedding his blood (as I think you mentioned in the video about the drowning of their brother George). Why would they have an open coffin if he'd died a bloody death?
I believe he was murdered by Edward IV. I don't believe he did the deed himself. It was probably under
his order. I think he was stabbed. Richard too would want him dead. I'm leaning towards Edward though.
Tired of lies about Richard iii. There is much newly uncovered proof contrary to Tudor propaganda.
I never thought I'd be considering an idea of Philippa Gregory's but here goes. I just finished watching "The White Queen'' on Starz, having signed up in anticipation of viewing "Becoming Elizabeth." She has the three York brothers enter Henry's room during festivities. George and Richard pin down Henry by the legs and waist while Edward takes a pillow and smothers him. So all three work together against a common enemy, as they've done all their lives, and take the blame and responsibility for Henry's death equally. Killing a king is not really something you can safely delegate to others; it would put you in their control. This scenario makes dramatic and logical sense to me.
A later comment mentioned that they thought he might have gone into a catatonic State as he had twice before. I would like to expand on that, purely in supposition, that he might have had a brain tumor that brought on these states. Depending on where the tumor was and how large it was, he might have had a stroke when he was told his son was dead due to the tumor. Therefore, he might have died a natural death. This would also explain why some (one?) sources said that he died of shock after being told the battle was lost and his son was dead. What do you think?
Despite years of fiendish historical nerdom (with a degree to prove it), I must say that there is simply no other channel I'd visit for this information. Especially not the big ones. Your thorough examination of sources and common sense commentary always keep me on the edge of my seat. Thank you so much for your work. I find now that if I have a burning question about the Cousins War/RotR or the Tudors, I'll scroll until I see one of your videos. You are amazing!
Aww, thank you so much. That's very flattering. I'm not immune to mistakes sometimes of course (particularly given that the videos need to be out every week), so of course I still encourage you to do any extra research you might feel is necessary.
Hear, hear. As a fellow historian, I consider this channel second to none for the quality of the work on the sources.
@@HistoryCallingyou've really set a new bar for historical content on youtube. I struggle to watch some of the larger channels now that I follow.
I'd only ever heard of the 'blow to the back of the head' theory of death.
As you say, keep learning...thank you for all the great content :D
You're welcome. The head blow isn't impossible, but I do think that level of damage would have been noticed and remarked upon if his coffin was open.
@@HistoryCalling completely agree. Thanks again for everything you do 🙂
Thomas More as a young man resided in the household of Morton the Bishop of Ely, a slippery character and a die-hard Lancastrian.
Great video, very detailed. One note on Richard Duke of Gloucester is that he was Lord High Constable of the Tower from the time Edward IV regained the throne. So Richard was in charge of the Tower at the time of Henry VI's death. I've often wondered if it was this reason that gossip assumed he was responsible. Just as one would think that Richard would not have murdered an anointed king and his cousin without Edward IV's knowledge, one would think such a murder would not occur in the Tower without Richard's knowledge--or if it had, that the Lord High Constable would hang those responsible promptly to ensure justice was seen to be done. But of course the Yorks may have simply thought it best to not to acknowledge that an anointed king and cousin had been murdered while in their custody and decided to put about the story of death by melacholy. Obviously public gossip did not believe it.
Say what you will, the Wars of the Roses is never boring.
I think George would be a more likely assassin than Richard. Nothing could be done without Edward's permission. There were rumors that Edward of Westminster was captured alive but executed by George.
I agree. Everyone forgets George, except how he died. Edward may have confided in George or given him a direct order.
If Henry was such a bad king how come he was housed at Waddington hall for 12 months in relative safety? The house also went to ruin and they inscribed the message "upon this ruin we raise his ashes." They later rebuilt the entire hall in his name. It seems like a lot of effort for a failed king.
Had he been killed before his son was dead, then Prince Edward would have become the Lancastrian King and he was a much more popular and charismatic figure than his father and could have rallied greater support. He also wasn't under the Yorks' power, whereas Henry was and could therefore be controlled.
@@HistoryCalling so was it more about honoring his line not necessarily Henry himself? It just seems odd to house a bad king for 12 months then rebuild the hall in his honour nearly 300 years later.
Why take teeth or bones as souvenirs? Do what with them? Place them on a shelf and invite people over for dinner to admire them together?
Was he murderd we have no proof, it's a possibility he was murderd the means and whom did this deed again we have no proof, as with Richard's part in this that is open to debate, logically I think he was murderd how and what means I haven't a clue, welcome back HC hope you enjoyed your well earnt break.
Yeah, I think murder is the most likely option too (unfortunately for Henry). :-(
@@HistoryCalling glad you agree 😊
Who wasn't poisoned, beheaded, locked away or die of other reasons back in the day?
It's a short list for sure! :-)
Henry VI cause of death was accidental. He was accidentally (and quite erroneously) named king at the age of 11 months old. From there, his reign was a series of dreadful accidents of history (exacerbated by his appalling ineptitude). This culminated in his accidental death when his head inadvertently got in the way of a cudgel, swung by an understandably annoyed operative of Edward IV
Haha, I was raising my eyebrows at first at the claim that it was accidental, but by the end of the comment I was laughing :-)
@@HistoryCalling yeah, that was my sarcasm rearing its head again 😜
@@Fair_dinkum yeah, they were very "accident prone" back then.
I don't know if I agree with your viewpoint but I enjoyed thinking about it. Congrats on the surprise ending.
If we could post gifs here, now would be a good time for that 'had us there in the first half' one.
"Who brings a pig bone to a disinterment?" 🤣 love it. I think this is probably another one of those "mysteries" where the gossip is more dramatic than the truth.
Side note: I feel like we should be paying tuition for these videos! Quality work.
Thanks Laura. Yes, the pig bone certainly suggests some bits of Henry were removed for relics. Bits of the Princes in the Tower were gone too (and animal bones left in their place).
@@HistoryCalling Perhaps the people doing the disinterment got hungry, had pork for lunch and did a poor job cleaning up after themselves? In all seriousness though, I agree. The animal bones were likely left behind to cover for bones that were taken as relics.
I never leave home without a pig bone.
Who brings a pig bone to a disinterment? Someone hungry for relics of course!
Yup! The missing arm & teeth were probably used as relics. My reasoning for that is the very fact that at the beautiful York Minster, Henry VI’s statue had to be replaced as people were treating it as a shrine & pilgrimage, maybe taking away bits of that statue & claiming miracles were taking place there.
A body will eventually “purge” fluids even with the most modern and intensive embalming methods, and it’s not uncommon for this to happen a day after, which could either have been mistaken for bleeding or just how it was referred to at the time. As far as I know, wounds don’t tend to bleed post-mortem, but I’m no expert! At any rate, it alone doesn’t really prove or disprove the matter. Great video as always!
Yes, I've heard of modern embalmed bodies leaking a little bit in the days and weeks after death. Glad you liked the video :-)
@@HistoryCalling When my uncle, who was a big guy, was in his casket, he started "sweating" out the embalming fluid. It was creepy! The funeral director came and closed the casket and ushered the people into another room so he could fix the problem which was simply wiping the face and reapplying the makeup. It looked like he was sleeping and sweating on a hot night. I'll never forget it....
yes, corpses don't bleed, they leak, bc you can only bleed with a heart beat. And they can leak whether or not there is a wound. They will leak out of any orifice.
Honestly, I think Henry VI went into another catatonic state upon learning of his son's death. Those charged with telling the King may have even been brutal with the news adding horrific detail. They may have hoped the King would take shock and die on the spot. It was not unheard of in those days. Instead he zoned out like he did all those years ago. Edward IV and/or Richard may have thought, not again...and smothered Henry. A dagger may have been slipped between the ribs to hurry the death along. Yes, I think Henry was mudered.
Yeah, I don't think it was a natural death either. The timing was just too convenient.
That does seem like a plausible theory to me. Like, Henry had been known to go catatonic in moments of extreme stress so being told that his son was dead, his wife a captive, and all hope of regaining the crown lost forever could definitely have been stressful enough to trigger a breakdown. The only thing I would say was that I imagine Edward would probably have been planning Henry's death anyways because he was simply too dangerous to keep alive as recent events had shown him.
A vague theory but along similar lines, he could’ve had an accident or been set up to have one, hit his head or something when going catatonic. I’m rather intrigued by your idea of it being spur of the moment frustration and something less violent, it seems very sensible
@@naomiskilling1093 absolutely
Good theory.
perhaps to hide all evidence he also could have been smothered
The idea that he dropped dead for some reason is just too convenient and unlikely. Killing a king isn't something that just anybody could do, even in those days. Access to Henry would have been strictly limited, possession of weapons would also have been controlled. His gaolers would have been pretty careful too in case they were implicated. This act of violence against a king could only have been done by either Richard or by Edward himself. The risks were just too great for anyone else to do it. Not forgetting that Henry was also in direct line to the French throne through his mother Katherine of Valois. There had to be French interest in his preservation, in case anything went wrong there ( he was supposed to be king, but again usurped). It is difficult to see anybody else as a possible murderer. Motive, means and opportunity all lay at Edwards' door as being ultimately responsible. Keeping your enemy alive wasn't really an option in those days either.
Actually, Im not so sure, the French wouldve been interested in his preservation due to his claim to the French throne, rather the opposite. As u say, he was supposed to inherit the French throne as agreed upon in connection with the marriage between Henry V and Katherine of Valois, but the French, not surprisingly, went back on their agreement after Henry V's death shortly after.
I would think, that as some1 with a close bloodline and a legally valid claim to the French throne, the French would actually be fine with him being out of the way, and with his son also dead that would neatly end that possible threat to the French king.
The only reason, I can see, for the French being interested in keeping Henry alive, would be, if u ignored Henry's claim to the French throne and viewed him solely as an English king, then the French would be just fine with having the English wars over their throne continue, all the better for the French.
@@dfuher968 I think the French would have been interested to some extent as a) it is always good to have an alternative up your sleeve ( so to speak) b) he was married to Margaret of Anjou so there was more French connections there, even if her son was dead, she could still have had an advantageous influence. I still think the buck lies with Edward 4th.
It was definitely Edward. No matter who did this, only Edward had the power to order the killing of another King.
@@cindysuecox1 While I would not quite use the word "definitely", what you state certainly looks to be the case. Edward IV would have felt he had no choice unless he wanted to risk losing the crown again.
In fairness to Edward IV, if he did order Henry VI to be killed it’s because he had wanted to eliminate the threat of the Lancastrians once and for all (he spared Henry years early and look what that lead too.) With Edward of Westminster dead, King Henry (aside from Henry Tudor) was the last Lancastrian and would always remain as an object to rally around for future rebellions if left alive. Edward II and Richard II were also not immediately killed after being deposed, but there were attempts to free them and their respective usurpers knew they would not know peace and security if the former king remained alive.
Yes, I completely agree with you on Edward's motives. Henry VI was always going to be a focus for potential rebellions.
A living predecessor is always problematic for a usurper. Having them exiled to the tomb of history is simple prudence.
@@HistoryCalling Exactly, plus Jasper Tudor was still active in France and could of continued the Lancastrian cause for his half-brother/cousin instead of his nephew Henry Tudor, so even though the Lancastrians were defeated they were not wiped out.
@@vilstef6988Of course, Henry VI was directly descended from Henry IV who usurped the throne from Richard II. And Richard II also conveniently died.
I think he left Henry VI alive the first time because Edward of Westminster was alive. Far better to have a frail, mentally unstable rival than a young healthy one. Once Edward of Westminster was dead there was no reason to keep Henry alive.
The Image at 5:13 it’s not John Rous: it’s a Spanish friar named Fray Bartolomé De las Casas, who documented the Spanish conquests de Las Indias.
It was a common belief in the Middle Ages that the body of a murder victim would bleed in the presence of the murderer. Maybe the claim that Henry’s body bled after death was meant to bolster the assertion that he was murdered.
Yep, that was my immediate thought too.
Oooh, good one 👵👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Shakespeare seems to think so and makes it one of his opening scenes in the "Tragedy of Richard III" when Henry is being carried to burial.
Great content once again - I think the likelihood was that he was murdered. All too common in those days!
Thanks Rick. Yes, it was a seriously dangerous time to be a member of the English royal family. Better to be a peasant probably!
Of course he was murdered. Archaeological evidence of his body dug up in 1910 revealed blood on his head with physical damage to his skull, suggesting that he did indeed meet a cruel death at the hands of someone else.
Yay for History Calling Friday!
It seems far too convenient for Henry to have died of natural causes. Edward would have been behind it, though I find it unlikely that he did the deed himself. I find Richard to be a good candidate for the murderer because Edward was his brother and they probably wouldn’t want a lackey to be able to say he killed Henry. As for method, I really can’t come to a conclusion. Blunt force trauma to the back of the head and stabbing both seem plausible. If he was stabbed, it would have had to have been somewhere covered by the funerary linens or whatever they dressed him in while in the open casket.
Great video, as always! Have a great week!
Thank you. Yes, the timing just wreaks of murder to me as well.
The timing suggests a deliberate act. The broken state of the skull (given that it was described as thin) could have been accounted for by bodily pressure and therefore implies that Henry might have been asphyxiated under bedding or a door. Bodily pressure might have caused the bone damage or at least cracked the skull sufficiently leading to further break-up well post-mortem.
Asphyxia has advantages as it might have been regarded as 'not regicide' in that it did not involve spilling the king's blood. Edward II suffered an alleged self cauterising wound in the rectum. Richard II may have been starved or poisoned. Given that the Yorkists wanted him gone and gone quick asphyxia is my best bet.
Barry Slemmings
Short answer. Yes, yes he was murdered. But to be fair, (especially for those brutal times) Edward kept him in captivity for years, until it became impossible to let him live to keep uprisings in his name keep happening. I’m sure the populace was relived to just have some peace.
You're probably right about the pronunciation of the Croyland report being Crowland. As someone that lives near the village of Crowland in Lincolnshire there is an Abbey. (All in ruins really. ) And I haven't heard about a place called Croyland in the UK but I could be wrong as geography isn't my strong suit!
My opinion, based on the information in this video, is that he was murdered.
Well it wouldn’t be the first time the Tudors backdated something…
Ah yes, there is the question of what day Henry VII became King, to give but one example.
@@HistoryCalling yeah. It’s all so fascinating. The lack of a lot of the official records makes it even more wonderful to debate.
👏👏👏👏😂😂😂😂
Accident or not, Henry IV is a poster child on why being made king as a baby is a dreadful thing for both the child, and national stability.
Also welcome back, Dr Ms History!
The Stewarts had the WORST luck with that. And Richard II's reign wasn't the best, to put it mildly- at least Henry VI didn't turn into an arrogant power-hungry tyrant.
Yes, infant or child monarchs rarely turn out well. Edward VI was well on his way to being a little tyrant as well I think.
True he didn’t become a tyrant but I’ve always been lead to believe he didn’t really do much. As said in the video he let others rule in his name. I’d actually argue that an absent king is worse than a tyrant in ways. A tyrant, you’ll have even a rough idea what sets them off. An absent? It’s down to whoever’s got the power that day.
@@HistoryCalling Yeah, I’d agree with you there. Possibly as axe-happy as his awful father, & possibly even more of a religious zealot than Mary.
Brilliant! Agreed, his death right then was just waaaaay too convenient, & the likeliest culprit was the one who immediately benefited most, Edward IV- just on his orders, not with his own hands; my guess is a loyal but relatively lowly servant willing to do it in hopes of reward, who met with a sad "accident" soon thereafter, but Edward _was_ king & in charge of everything, including the Tower. I can't see why on earth Richard would do it- what motive??- or be asked by Edward to do it personally.
Yes, I can't see Richard doing this personally either. It just makes very little sense to me. A convenient lacky seems more likely to me too.
@@HistoryCalling You also think it'd be a convenient lackey? Cool, I wasn't sure if my guess was way off! Yeah, I might think Richard was most likely responsible for the deaths of his nephews- with the same reasoning as above, & also just giving the order- but I don't think he was "evil" & responsible for every murder that occurred in his lifetime. This & stuff like supposedly poisoning his wife IS just unfair blackening of his reputation.
I've always thought Richard could very well have done it. It had become obvious that it was too dangerous to have an ex king hanging around, just too much bother. Regarding Richard III, I really don't agree with people who believe he has been maligned unjustly
He might have, but I hesitate to lay it at his door due to the lack of any real evidence. Certainly though, I think he is rightly blamed for what happened to his nephews.
I don't think he was totally evil, but Richard III definitely was opportunistic and ambitious. Regicide is a very tricky business and was normally carried out by the highest ranked individuals in that society. So it makes sense that Richard III and Edward IV were involved, and most likely in a physical way. Now the idea of Henry IV might have been in a catatonic state and was killed for that reason is interesting.
I have always felt that the Tudor "press" (rumor mill) was playing damage control with Richard the III. During his reign, you could not say a bad thing about him, because that would be treason. So while there was gossiping and whispers, very few people would have dared slander a King or his family. When the Tudors came into power, they wanted to discredit Richard III, so they went all out..(When in fact the truth is probably much more in the middle, than being far left or right or pro Tudor/ pro Lancastor bent.
I mentioned it earlier but the one thing you don't discuss here is that being caught with documents even as a courtier saying the King of England or one of his brothers was guilty of Regicide would have been treasonous and a reason to be executed. Even speaking such a thing in some places would have been risky. So it does make sense that the writers during this time period weren't coming out and accusing them of murder. It was somewhat (though not completely fool proof) to say, the rumor is "xyz" or I heard that "xyz" happened but I don't really know.
If it was Richard or Edward they could have just ordered someone to do it, it makes no sense for someone at such a high position to kill a political enemy by their own hands, it’s just risky and unnecessary.
@@charles_capet321 this I agree with!
@@charles_capet321She does bring up the excellent point that it would not have been deemed right for a commoner to kill a king. That gives the commoner's ideas. The same thing happened with Elizabeth and Mary of Scotland. Elizabeth hesitated to have her executed because she did not want people to know that a prince could be executed. Remember later at Charles I how all of Europe and a lot of England was shocked that they executed him. It was unheard of.
Help wanted:
King of England.
May have difficult work environment....
Haha, so true (of monarchs then and now!)
👍👍👍👏👏👏😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'd like to throw out a theory, for which I have no sources and have never read of, that maybe it was George (Clarence) who killed Henry on the orders of his brother Edward. He was the second eldest and as Edward had not had any children yet, he was Edwards heir. And we know how hungry for the throne he was.
Your research and grammar is usually spot on, but I do disagree with your conclusion that Hope's lack of medical training means his conclusion that Henry died a violent death is highly doubtful. Hope's lack of medical training meant that he should not assume that the matter on Henry's hair was blood, yet that does not nessecarily mean that his conclusion was incorrect. He may in fact have been correct. Hope's conclusion should be taken as possibly incorrect, but not "highly doubtful". Semantics, I know, but I feel it worth mentioning.
The controversy and historical sources concerning Henry VI's death is always all over the place. Everytime medieval and modern sources are made there's always so many varied accounts or some kind of lie, deception or omission. But History Calling I'm inclined to agree with you concerning the fact with what happened to his wife and son, and the warring factions between Yorke and Lancaster during that time it's implausible that he died peacefully. Edward IV wanted to eliminate any threat to his rule being that he was deposed once by Henry VI's forces In 1470.
Yes, I think murder is the most likely option too. Edward was a pragmatist and really not sentimental at all. I mean the guy had his own brother executed (though George really had it coming).
@@HistoryCalling you're right. Edward IV really was. George Plantagenet Duke of Clarence sure was the middle brother between Edward IV and Richard III. Edward IV sure did have him executed in 1478 because he did an act of a traitor and sided against him with the Earl of Warwick.
@@HistoryCalling Edward IV really was. George Plantagenet the Duke of Clarence sure was the middle brother between Edward IV and Richard III. Edward IV had to execute George Plantagenet in 1478 because George became a traitor when he sided against Edward IV with the Earl of Warwick.
@@HistoryCalling Starved to death, perhaps? Edward, if the butt of malmsey story is true, had an aversion to shedding royal blood.
Yayyyy! I get excited for new videos from HC on Friday! Thank you for your awesome well done content and truly wonderful delivery. Such a treat! ❤️
Thanks Emma. Hope you enjoy hearing about Henry's suspicious death :-)
This is quite a mystery, and a true challenge for historians. Could he have been poisoned? Or is poisoning too "easy" to suggest because it can't be proved or dis-proved?
He was clubbed to death had blood in his hair duh. No mystery never has been
Poisoning certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility, especially if you wanted to be able to display a body without any signs of violence on it.
Yes it sorta is. Poisoning someone is super hard and back then super obvious . Ed wanted it quick. He sent a goin squad in to club him to death and that was that. Richard didn't do it. Eddy ordered it. And it's really pretty simple I have an 8 year degree specifically between 500 and 1500ish and this is razzle dazzle history. Any real historian will roll Thier eyes and sigh. No biggy you need views I get it but it's like saying did the Pope poison JFK. Like of course not he'd have hired some random first off and second he was very clearly shot in the head. But your right he COULDVE been poisoned.
Look at it this way. There's way way too many ways poisoning could've gone wrong. Dosage is hard. Too many variables down to what he's eaten. Eddy wanted it done done. He was very much over the bullshit by then.
If I recall correctly, sometimes inconvenient prisoners of aristocratic or royal blood were starved to death because it didn't require an overt act like poisoning.
The idea that Henry VI only heard of the death of Prince Edward when Edward IV arrived in London, with Queen Margaret as a prisoner, strikes me as unlikely. The battle of Tewkesbury was fought and Prince Edward killed on May 4th, and Henry died on May 21st, the day the victorious Edward arrived in London. He must surely have heard or worked out that his son was dead, or at least suspected so. The idea he collapsed with a fatal stroke or heart attack at the news seems improbable and only suits Yorkist propaganda. Dispatching Henry was unfinished business after Tewkesbury.
Richard of Gloucester may well have been sent to the Tower to get Henry killed - he does not necessarily have to have performed the deed himself as he does for dramatic and symbolic effect in Shakespeare’s play. Edward IV ultimately and Richard proximately must be seen as accountable. The Yorkists were not fastidious and not slouches in getting rid of their opponents.
Yes, the idea of it being a natural death is too much for me to swallow as well. As Henry was in the custody of the Yorks, I see them as ultimately responsible too, no matter who actually did the deed.
If Henry was as tall as estimated and Richard had scoliosis it would have been hard for him to hit Henry over the head if Henry was standing.
Please note a "Glaive" is a form of weapon on a pole, originally a farm implement but the time of the WotR had developed into the Swiss-army knife of medieval warfare the pole-axe and the billhook.
Henry's passing could have been due to natural causes but I think you are correct. The timing was extremely convenient.
I know it is not verbatim but William Shakespeare's "Tragedy of Richard III" starts with that very scene of Henry's open coffin being translated to Chertsey and an irate Anne Neville, Henry's daughter-in-law and Richard's future wife, pretty convinced who the perpetrator was.
Richard is condemned by history and his brother Edward gets a "free-pass".
Edward capable of political murder?
A young Edward had already ordered the execution of Henry VI's Step-father at Hereford.
Edward ordered the execution of Lord Richard Welles, a one-time ally, at Stamford.
I also cite someone you have only mentioned briefly in one of your videos and only by the mention of his wife, Anne of York, Edward IV's eldest sister.
I refer to the staunch Lancastrian Henry Holland the 3rd Duke of Exeter. Henry had been badly wounded and left for dead at Barnet, the same battle Warwick had been killed in and from where wounds caused, Lady Margaret Beaufort's second husband would perish.
Remarkably Henry survived and made his peace with his brother-in-law Edward IV whose star (sic) was rising.
Conjecture is the relationship wasn't great and Edward had Henry pushed overboard crossing the English Channel.
Henry sleeps with the fishes.
Could Edward have done the same to poor old Henry VI? He would later order like for his own brother-in-law?
Regards,
Titus.
i do think that if he was murdered, edward iv has to have at least approved of it, in the same way that richard iii must have approved getting rid of the princes. they were both kings in these situations- if they hadn’t wanted murder, it would not be a mystery. in a way, i think both alleged murders can be linked. richard would have only been 18 at the time of henry’s death. watching his older brother (who he was apparently very loyal to) depose of a king so that he could have the throne would no doubt have set a precedent in richard’s mind. with this in mind, i can only conclude that yes, the brothers were responsible for these deaths in each respective situation. i don’t think edward PHYSICALLY did it himself though- if he sent anyone, his loyal younger brother would be the obvious answer. a non-family member would have been too risky, and it wasn’t likely to be george. so, richard kills a helpless king on his brother’s selfish orders- wouldn’t be surprised if that created a psychological link for him that led to him ordering the deaths of his nephews.
I agree about Edward, but remain puzzled by the notion that Richard, whose claim to the throne did not require the boys' death, who would have been blamed for it even if they had died of natural causes, and who would have been equally threatened whether they were alive or dead as long as they were not known to be dead, "must" have had them killed. The Duke of Buckingham had better motive and equal opportunity.
Funeral arranger here. Even with modern embalming techniques and chemicals.. it only takes one poorly embalmed part of the body part to appear that the whole thing look and smell poorly.
It's interesting when people say that Edward usurped the throne from Henry VI considering Henry VI was the grandson of Henry IV who usurped the throne from Richard the 2nd. Who also conveniently died after losing his throne.
I would like to offer an alternative theory. So, it was well established that Henry VI had mental health issues, and he had had a mental breakdown almost two decades before he died.
The death of his son and capture of his wife and daughter in law may have caused another breakdown. God forbid, maybe he killed himself or he wasn't given proper care during his latest mental health crisis. Either way, it would have been a scandal, because it would be caused by negligence on the part of the Yorks. Idk, so many of the accounts just seem like slander more than actual testimonies of the truth.
Oh, he was definitely murdered and Edward and Richard were behind it. If I had to place a bet I’d say Richard did the deed. There’s no way in the world (back in those days) that they’d have allowed a former King to remain alive. Is there any documentation about Margaret’s opinion on how Henry died?
Another great video and thank you for your hard work!
I think he may have killed himself. He would have known he wouldn’t be allowed to live long, and probably knew that it wouldn’t be a peaceful death, so took matters into his own hands.
He had been in Edward's custody previously, only to be placed once again on the throne thanks to Margaret ... the whole thing had just dragged on so long with see-sawing dominance and it was necessary to bring it to an end by finally get rid of a weak and destabilising king.
Yes, I would imagine that's how Edward IV looked at it as well.
It's for sure murder, but I would lay good odds that a commoner was hired, who was...dispatched...afterwards.
So glad to have you back with another superb video. Hope you enjoyed your holiday. Regarding Henry’s death, the “brothers Lancaster” just have way too much verified plotting to doubt they (all or some) had a hand in Henry’s death (at least in ordering it). They would have certainly believed in the political necessity at this point. But, the idea of in-person regicide is not something I can get behind. Ordering, yes, physically doing, not so much. Even though they believed their claim to the throne was better than Henry’s, the fact remained he had inhabited it so I believe they still would have viewed the physical murder as some level of regicide and would want to at least have plausible deniability. Agree, we will never know the specifics though…too many conflicting rumors. On the where, no idea. As the plaque in the tower chapel was probably part of the general Tudor whitewash or later. As always, your videos layout the most verifiable facts, identify rumors and let the listener decide.
Yes, I can't imagine them doing it with their own hands either. That would be unnecessary and rather stupid in my opinion. Better to have some lacky do it who could later be thrown under the bus if necessary.
They were not the 'Brothers Lancaster '. They were the 'Brothers York '.
I'm not sure he was murdered. He may have been, but he may also have died from a heart attack or a stroke, which gives no previous symptoms. If he was killed, I do not think Richard was the perpetrator. Putting the blame on him us more likely a later Lancaster attemt to put him in a bad light.
Yes, I don't see any contemporary evidence that Richard did this either.
Pretty sure ‘Blame Richard III’ was their plan for everything.
Yes but Richard had access to him and I can't think of anyone who wanted to kill him more than him.
If I recall, anthropological evidence of his body dug up in 1910 revealed blood on his head with physical damage to his skull, suggesting that he did indeed meet a cruel death at the hands of someone else.
This is very interesting. If so many people are saying that Richard the Duke of Gloucester killed King Henry VI then it’s quite possible. Richard was a very ruthless person when it came to gaining power. This just may be the first royal he killed or had killed.
Ah, but no one really said that until much later, so are we just being influenced by Tudor propaganda, which was itself influenced by what happened to the Princes in the Tower (who I think R3 probably did have killed)?
Ruthless? How many scores of thousands died and were maimed because Henry would not abdicate? When high born enemys get captured in battle they get executed. Both sides did it...... a lot.
For years Edward IV had been keeping Henry VI in the Tower as a pet pretty much. He was only kept alive IMO because Prince Edward (H’s son) and Queen Margaret were still at large. Once Prince Edward was slain at Tewkesbury, Henry’s stay as a better-kept member of the Royal menagerie was obviously going to be ‘ended’.
I think that Richard of Gloucester was probably tasked with informing H6 of his son’s death to make E4’s official line of death from melancholy look more plausible. It wouldn’t be difficult to convince everybody that an 18-year-old freshly returned from battle and overseeing the execution of prisoners afterward would lack a bedside manner.
Whether RoG wielded the dagger or not is debatable. Killing an anointed king was not a trivial matter in those superstitious times but then if RoG didn’t do it that only really leaves E6, whom no source that I know of places at the Tower at the time.
I speculate that H6 went into another catatonic state brought on by the news of his son’s death and the outcome at Tewkesbury and was ‘mercy killed’, so to speak. Who wants an incapacitated pet in their menagerie?
Whether Edward or Richard they can just order someone loyal to them to kill Henry, it’s unnecessary for them to kill Henry by their own hands.
@@charles_capet321 But then, as in classic mystery stories, they have to worry about the discretion of their appointed assassin. However, I don't think Henry was necessarily murdered.
For Glevys if it helps Gleffe (glavîn , glevîn , glavîe , glevîe , glëve) in medieval fencing manual (circa 1430 we think) is a the word for lance/spear usually you see it in a riding context but you see it in armoured combat on foot as well.
I tend to follow the Bard when it comes to speculation about the Wars of the Roses - he was a few generations closer to events than even the best modern historian - 🛸✨
I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for (he was right about RIII's scoliosis for instance) but also not as good as some others would have us believe. It all comes down to what sources he read/heard before writing up his plays.
@@HistoryCalling - he was a very good amateur historian and had access to still circulating living memories of events I expect - he also had at least some little talent expressing himself of course so his version of events correct or not are rather lucid compared to trying to read Raphael Holinshed who Shakespeare relied on a great deal for English history
I agree with you he was killed, We're just not sure who did as you gave several good reasons of could have done it or who ordered it. Hope you had a great time off.
I think Henry was murdered. It makes sense that Edward IV would want to end the war by killing any Lancastrian heirs. He couldn’t kill Henry VI while his heir was free, but once Edward of Westminster was dead Henry could be killed too. Edward ordered it, Gloucester over saw it and I think method of murder would have been something that didn’t leave a mark, like smothering, so Henry’s body could be displayed (so no further rebellions could be made in his name). If Henry was smothered, it’s a physical act, it could require quite a lot of strength, not to mention the mental capability of killing someone known to be gentle and innocent in life (more than one person may have been needed?), I can’t see someone like Gloucesters status doing that. I think it’s a great story though, the idea that Gloucester would do it for the house of York and for revenge maybe!? Who knows maybe Gloucester blamed Henry VI for the deaths of his father and elder brother and the civil war he endured as a child.
Yes, I think that is a very plausible analysis of the Yorks' motives and means and R3 did indeed have what we would now call a traumatic childhood, though few people ever really mention it.
Good as ever. Glayvus was glaive, a kind of pole-axe.
Ahh, thank you :-)
Thanks! I absolutely love your videos and look forward to Fridays as not just being the end of the workweek.
THANK YOU so much for your very generous donation Kathy. Yes, one of the reasons I selected Fridays as my upload day actually, was that I thought/hoped it would be a nice end of week treat for people :-)
Can you find out why two of the small arched windows on the upper floor of the Tower were bricked up? I have contacted the Tower of London through their web page, but got no reply, and have asked other historians the same question but still have had no replies. Could you find out and maybe do a video on what the reason was for doing this. I would appreciate it being I love English History especially medieval time period. Thank you.
I'm sorry. I don't know which windows you're referring to. There's probably a very simple explanation though. Buildings were always being altered and modernised to suit the times and it may be that those windows were just felt to be superfluous to requirements at whatever time they were closed up, or maybe they were causing unwanted draughts.
It's possible that he died of grief but I think it more likely that he was killed. I'm not sure what the legal precedent for having him executed would have been but leaving him alive would have left Edward open to further issues. I don't think it likely Richard the 3rd personally did it, purely because of his station, but there's some sense in having your trusted relative do your dirty work.
I don't think an English King had been executed yet at this point. They'd died in battle, in accidents and been almost certainly murdered (thinking Richard II here), but I think Charles I was the only one to actually be executed. It certainly would have been a very bad precedent to set (as was murdering the monarch).
@@HistoryCalling Better to be suspected than to be known to be a regicide, I suppose.
Poor Henry, he was just not up to it, was he? The line of madness that came across from France with one of the queens was debilitating. I know probably Richard did it for Edward ( who wants an ex king hanging about) but I sometimes feel that Richard was an expedient scapegoat. A man’s favourite hunting hound died and probably Richard did it. Some reports are so convenient ( same these days with the media) , add in Shakespeare and bobs your uncle. Not so much defending Richard as playing devils advocate. He had to be made out to evil for expedience sake. Bodies don’t bleed after death. Red embalming fluid? Never heard of it. 👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
I don't know how good the embalming at that time was, so I wouldn't rule out some leakage, but it wouldn't have been bleeding in the normal sense (with a heartbeat pumping out the blood). I've heard of modern cases though of a little bit of blood coming out of an embalmed body (though through the nose).
Through the nose? Hasn’t heard of that one, thank you. Mind you, it’s not something that comes up in everyday conversation is it. 🙏🙏🙏🙏👵👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
I’ve always found it funny that Henry Bolingbroke overthrew a king Richard, and then an Edward overthrew a Henry, and then a Richard overthrew an Edward, and then a Henry overthrew a Richard. It’s just the same name back and forth lol
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Richard killed many people! Henry VI, baron Hastings, princes of the Tower, to name a few...
He was ruthless however his hopes of establishing his line fell flat after the death of his only son. Soon after Richard was killed and never buried as a king. Justice ☀️
He has had a royal burial now, but admittedly he had to wait over 500 years to get it.
@@HistoryCalling his infamous demise points to the fact that his kingship was a charade. A despicable man who betrayed - was betrayed himself and forsaken. The hunchback broke moral standards of then knight-culture and was silently hated by men and women whose families he devasted. I hope they found solace in how the Divine Will worked out 😌
@@mw6267 I think you need to watch the documentary about the discovery of Richard's body. He wasn't a "hunchback". I'd also recommend you enrol on a fantastic online course offered by Future Learn "England in the time of Richard III". You might change your opinion ...
@@clareb8015 "Hunchback" isn't a medical condition, merely a term used at that time to describe someone whose back isn't straight. Richard had scoliosis, but that didn't exist as a medical condition, so people would've described him as a "hunchback", cos his scoliosis was severe. "Hunchback" is an insulting term, agreed, but it's not insulting to say it's an accurate description in the unkind terminology of the time. For me, it's what I admire about Richard- he became an incredible fighter despite a severe & painful physical condition that'd make fighting hard in lots of ways, & beat men who had none of those issues to overcome.
@@clareb8015 the body had a spine curvature when discovered and would result in a deformed back possibly a hunch it said that on the documentary
I’m sure that Henry was murdered but of course after all this time no culprit can be named. He was a weak king & although it had far reaching consequences he was got rid of.
Yes, I struggle to believe his was a natural death too.
If he wasn’t killed then I would guess that he possibly may have simply had a heart attack or a massive stroke
That's certainly possible, albeit extremely convenient for the Yorks.
@@HistoryCalling stranger things have happened. There is plenty of suspicion to draw a conclusion that he was killed so that Edward would have no more claimants to his throne
I don’t think Richard did it.
I don't either.
so good seeing you back, hopefully you got some relaxation time in on your break! i’m with you, i’m going with murder, it’s crazy to think how different the world would be today had he not lost the throne.
Thank you. Yes, that's an interesting historical 'what if'.
I've always wondered about the " strong Arms " of Princes . Most seem to be little known and many are anonymous now. ( Maybe a good subject here.?) I have to agree... it seems unlikely that any person would risk their life to help the Prince out of his dilemma by killing anyone of higher rank without orders. And the timing of Henry's death is just too convenient. Even if you're a supporter of Richard III, you have to admit not noticing the disappearance of the boys is carrying the old belief " Children should be seen and not heard " a little far. Through-out history , along with rumors we have the accounts of people " in the know" who really are not. I'm reminded of CIA agents inside info... that I found to be wrong. They assumed what they heard had to be correct because they were important people. Thanks for the Mystery. Good to have you back.
Yes, the timing is what really does for it in my opinion. Had Edward even waited a few weeks to have Henry killed I think there would be fewer fingers pointing at him, but I suppose he was worried in case Henry was broken out of prison.
Will never know true cause,that has been lost to time.
Yes, I suspect the exact details will never be known now. Poor Henry :-(
"If true, [Henry's death] was remarkably convenient for Edward IV." Priceless.
The power struggles of families in every community. Especially between cousins, it happens to this day.
So glad you have posted a new video! Hope you had a great well deserved break 🏴
Thank you. I did :-)
Further to my comments awhile ago I am always struck by the enigmatic phrase that Henry died of “pure displeasure”. The question that invites is whose. Was it Henry’s “pure displeasure” at the news of the death of his son and heir, the last direct hope of the House of Lancaster, or was it Edward IV’s “pure displeasure” with Henry for still being alive? The phrase is as I said enigmatic. One senses the writer raising his eye brow as he penned it. Henry’s death is just too convenient for it to be coincidental or accidental.
The fact that a significant popular cult developed around him in the ensuing years suggests that his subjects, whatever they had thought or experienced of government in his name, felt sympathy for him and saw in him a victim, a kindly intercessor and that he was not useless. Dead he might be, but believed to be still helpful to those in need. Such a cult often arose from what was perceived as an unjust or irreligious slaying of a good person. If Edward IV ordered the killing ( as is much the most likely cause ) then he created a popular following for Henry that lasted into the sixteenth century - Henry VI as a royal martyr was if not a threat a living rebuke to the Yorkists. With Prince Edward and virtually all the leading Lancastrians dead Henry was no threat at all. Which brings us back to “pure displeasure” at his continued existence.
There seems to be a great deal of evidence for the proposition that Henry VI was murdered. I think Edward IV must have decided he had no other choice, and probably directed his younger brother Gloucester (Richard III to be) to either arrange or personally carry out the deed.
Sometimes the "popular gossip" rings true. It does so for me on this occasion. (Those who argue that Richard would not have been capable of contracting the murder of his nephews later should presumably find all this problematic).
👏👏👍 Whoa, HC! Storming back from your brief hiatus with a slam dunk! Great video; I was swept up and yes, it was one of your longer videos but as I was hanging on to every word it didn't matter. I hope your time off was restful and rejuvenating. Welcome back. Oh, and I absolutely believe Richard III was involved somehow. Somewhere in the void his evil spirit is declaring, "YES! I did it...and I'm GLAD!! (Just kidding). See you next week! 🙏🏼
Thanks Stephen :-)
Excellent
If he had anything to do with it, you couldn't say that Richard murdered Henry VI any more than you would call an executioner a murderer. If the king ordered it, then it was legal. You obeyed your king in those days. So for people to say that Richard was a murderer, and that's even if he was involved, is not correct. The idea that Richard was even involved bothers me because of the heavy-handedness of the tutors in blaming him for everything. They even said he killed Henry VI son when he wasn't even there. They probably would have blamed him for the Black Death!
Just want to pop in to say thank you for your riveting content. I have been listening to massive (embarrassingly large) amounts of your videos this last week + and I very much enjoy doing it.
I am NOT at all an auditory learner, yet I can follow your voice, cadence, and narrative very well despite my difficulties.
I hope you keep up the good work with your commendable humility, friendliness, and interesting pronunciation of “w” for a long time to come. 😂
Thanks so much!!! I will check you out in Patreon soon.
Edward IV had Henry VI killed. Somehow Edward was just fine, but Richard has been charged with killing everyone. It is highly unlikely that Edward had his young brother kill the toppled king. Eduard,Margaret of Anjou’s, was most unlikely to have been Henry’s son. There was no contemporary rumor that Richard had anything to do with it.
Personally I didn't think there was enough sources for anything to be really known about Henry VI's death beyond that it was in the tower, sudden, and likely a result of foul play on Edward's part due to the timing. My only thought would be if we could look at the bones again and thus be able to have a forensic expert examine them could we ever really know how Henry died for sure. A stab wound or blunt force trauma to the head would leave behind evidence on the bones whereas a natural death as reported in the time would likely not.
Please note Henry VI was wounded at 1st. St. Albans by having an arrow in the neck!
No conjecture about that! Apparently the Yorkists apologised for that when they took him prisoner. Perhaps forensics saw that too.
Yes, another examination would certainly be interesting (assuming there are bones left and not just dust), though I admit I'm generally against digging people up just to satisfy our modern curiosities.
Yeaaaaahhhhh, way too convenient. Sure, coincidences happen, but the simplest answer fits best here. Edward and/or Richard likely saw this as the best opportunity to kill Henry and cement their claim. With young Edward dead, Henry was the last clear Lancasterian left (as I recall, could be wrong though), and with his mental health history, "dying of shock" is possible (still mad suspicious though).
I doubt very much that either Edward or Richard did it with their own hands. A trusted henchman or disposable thug serves that task well, and gives them (semi)plausible deniability.
henry VI of lancaster was the grandson of Charles VI Valois, both had
*periods of madness & challenging-turblent civil wars from their incapcity to rule...*
the armgnac-burgundian civil war, during the hundred years war,.
also the hidden illegitmate house* beaufourt... that connects more than 10 other families during war of the cousins, roses is often totally overlooked...
as for closely related cousins, commiting *regicide* or the death of annoited king,
it is almost in a pattern of history,
william II,....edward II, have very mysterious deaths...
also during any european monarchy* the periods of regency, regents are little or ever, disscussed , let alone , the reason why a *regent is actually needed ?
henry VI was a young boy, when his father Henry V died , likewise for much of his own reign.,. there were periods of regency , especially by his *beaufourt* uncles....
and his york cousin....
yes the plantagenets, long before Edward III had a *huge family* , with many many cadet branches, more than half the nobility in england...
big shock the house of capet in france & valois were their relatives too...
henry VI was crowned as king of england, and seperatly as king of france, in opposition to his french cousin ....
* english history* is often seen or viewed in a remote bubble , in ancestery genalogy , big suprises and shocks arise..
. henry VI of lancaster was related to half of europe, via his many many relatives...
also his wife magriute de anjou, was yet another distant cousin....,
the messy period, of king richard II who was not a lancaster or a york...
to Henry VII tudor... with plots and rebellions happening pretty regular,
prehaps the biggest illusion of history is, that any king during this period , is viewed as stable,
even henry V had the lollard disconent & the southhampton plot,
as we all know agincourt victory , rather than Battle of Castillon 1453 is mentioned,
the house of valois were truimphant, the plantagenet dynasty only then held calais...
this must have made henry VI of lancaster, tip over the edge...
Charles VII ( 1403 - 1461), the Victorious ( le Victorieux) he is not called it, as a joke, it was for the battle of castillon 1453 the final english defeat during the hundred years war...
"Payments made to Hugh Bryce for WHACKS-"
The prosecution rests its case!...
Considering they could have easily strangled him or smothered him, why in the world would anyone use a knife to kill him when that could easily be seen when people view the body. That was just plain illogical for people to say.
I would suggest they didn’t bother embalming him. If he was murdered & his body and burial treated with disrespect then why would they bother going to the trouble of embalming him? This would also explain any lost fluids as unembalmed he would’ve decomposed a lot quicker. May also explain lying in an open coffin only 1 day as he was getting on the nose!
As far as the reports of who and how he was killed? There’s a lot of here say especially years after his death. Sadly like enhanced portraits and inaccurate busts of rulers to promote their athleticism & might, we’ll never really know as there’s so much embellishment and political manouvering by sycophants & challengers to the Crown who want to ensure a smear campaign ruins reputations and garners support.
My belief, though I fully admit that I could be wrong, is that Henry VI was murdered on the orders, or at lease with the acquiescence, of Edward IV. Similarly, I believe that Edward II was murdered, as were the princes in the tower. Using which methods and precisely by whose hands I have no specific opinions in any case. I gather that the quiet murder of prisoners was not uncommon elsewhere or for prisoners of lower status, so it hardly seems to take any stretch of logic to think that it would have been done in any, or all, of the aforementioned cases.
I definitely believe Henry was murdered. It cannot be that convenient for Edward that King and heir, Warwick and Allies all dying at roughly the same time.
New Subscription! Excellent content, a gift of the 'Almighty Algorithm'!!
I think Henry most likely died of natural causes. Like his grandfather Charles VI of France, he suffered from episodes of madness. He clearly had also suffered a good deal from reversals of fortune in his lifetime, and at times had lived as a fugitive; I can't believe he would have been in a very robust state of health. I think it quite possible that the death of his son which meant the end of his line, might have driven the king to despair and shock sufficient to cause death. Although it was convenient to Edward IV that Henry died when he did, it is also a very likely time for a person who had suffered what Henry had to have died of misery and despair.
There is also nothing that would be acceptable as real proof in a court of law. Common gossip frequently attributed the death of anyone notable to murder, and this might have been especially true of a king held prisoner in the Tower. (Not that all rumors of such violence were always unfounded!) All the evidence reported was of a hearsay nature, as admitted by some of the writers themselves.
It's not impossible that the king was murdered, but there is very little, it seems to me, to prove it. If it was murder, it's not impossible that Richard III might have been involved, but there again there is little but suspicion to support his participation. Pro-Tudor propaganda and the ex post facto belief that he was responsible for the deaths of his nephews in the Tower clearly have at least something to do with associating him with the crime, if there was one.
I got to love all these people writing down rumours and gossip of the day. I bet they'd be running drama UA-cam channels if they were alive today!
I was always told that King Henry Died Monday Drinking Chocolate Milk 🤷🏻♀️
I know I'm late to this party, lol, but there was a common belief in the middle ages that the body of a murdered person would bleed in the presence of their murderer. The statements in near-contemporary documents about Henry VI's body bleeding at various times may have been a reference to this belief and the common belief as to whom the murderer(s) was/were, and not a recording of an actual sight of fluid leaking from the body. Just a thought.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Henry described as kind before 🤔 I thought he was known to offset his incompetence with a tendency for spite & grudge holding. What a winning combo! Lol
Thank goodness the times wrapped this type of thing in “piety” 😂
I have wondered for several years, and without any evidence whatsoever, if Henry 6th actually was the father of the baby Margaret produced. Always felt that the pregnancy was convenient. But I wouldn't blame her It must have been a grim, joyless marriage for her
Don't worry. You're not the only one to wonder that! :-)
@@HistoryCalling Margaret of Anjou might have justified her adultery as the only means of providing a Lancasterian heir.
Doesn't the queen have to give permission to run any forensic tests, including DNA? If I'm wrong, please let me know the procedures for queries of this nature. (Seriously).
Yes, she does 👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@@gonefishing167 right on, thank you !
Yes, she needs to give permission to dig up anyone buried in a royal chapel.
I pray that Henry vi wasn't murdered. I can't handle seing the kindest ruler of England being killed
Here is a thought, if he was killed what if he wasn't actually dead? With the accounts of bleeding makes an intriguing thought that he wasn't embalmed but that his wounds were dressed and that he was in a state of near death but our villain had him buried alive? I know it sounds more like a plot from a bad novel but sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction.
Poor Henry V1. Definitely a gentle soul who in no way could live up to the martial glory & fame of his father. Sad.
"Gleyuys" is almost certainly "glaives", a polearm that is basically a short sword on a pole.
Three of my Grandparents go way back. At first I was excited. But the more I find out about all these nasty people the less excited I am.
Is it not possible that he was poisoned through his life as child so that as an adult he got seizures so others around him in the court could continue being in control of the country even when he reached adulthood after all they had plenty of time to slow poison him
I have never had the desire to be a Queen or even a Princess, I sure wouldn’t have wanted to be Royal before about 1800.
History of mental illness, melancholy speaks to possibilities of suicide.
I went to school in Chertsey 1969-71 when we moved to Hampshire.
Lisa Summs, don't forget Yankee Wally's corned beef
It’s good to have you back! This can bounce back more than ping pong balls! Killing a king was serious stuff, but if you needed and wanted it bad enough, you found a way. Richard could have done it. Was he on his way to the throne himself? No one knows
Thanks Amy. Yes, it is disturbing how many members of that family killed (or supposedly killed) other members. By the time Henry Tudor arrived in England, there was hardly anyone left between him and the throne. He only had to get through one guy!
And no one ever will. But Edward had a vested interest in removing him. Maybe his wife cast a spell! I appreciate all your work on this. Your head must have been spinning after all the accounts, who wrote them, etc. I love history and this is a part of it. I vote Edward, why not?!?!
@@HistoryCalling❤😅