Life in a gilded cage indeed. How fortunate that her coffin included the detailed inscription. I find it very touching that Anne was treated with such dignity and grace when she was returned to the Abbey.
I do, too. Eyes got damp when I saw her small coffin on that lovely hearse-cloth. One star-crossed girl, three times interred. I hope she now, really, rests in peace where she belongs.
When I was studying Anne's life, I was shocked to find out how Henry VII destroyed the chapel she was buried in, which was only 20 years old and built by Elizabeth Woodville, and disinterred Anne's remains, making no move to re-inter them in the abbey, which left her mother to take them elsewhere.
Marrying them so young was considered a legal technicality , they would continue to live the normal lives of privileged children until they were older .At least little Anne wasn't in danger of sexual assault by her husband for a reasonable number of years because he was simply too young .It was horrible anyway but child brides are still a fact of life in certain parts of the world and females are most definitely treated as commodities .The fate of little Anne and her mother would bring tears to ones eyes ,not least the agony the little girl would have suffered from ingesting something arsenic .As for the mother noble women who were widowed fled to convents ,it was a place of sanctuary
Royal medieval marriages or' promised' were sometimes already held in infancy to ensure treaties and lands. These were formal declarations signed and witnessed by the nobility or wealthy merchants and sanctified by the Church.. The consummation of that marriage would only take place at a more appropriate age. As to consanguinity, for a goodly sum, the Pope would dispense permission to marry even if closely related. The only true taboo was between siblings which even the Church could not over ride.
Rich people used their children to breed much the same as their hunting dogs. Royal families were the worst. Just look at the Hapsburgs. Not to mention Egyptian pharoahs and Roman emperors.
I think it demonstrates that the nobility regarded marriage as little more than a business arrangement, or a dynastic tool to either increase their wealth or at least keep it within the family.
There is no actually evidence, however, that the bones in the urn are his. Never dated, never sexed, found so low they would be in the Roman layer (there was a Ro man cemetery nearby).
There is no proof that the bones in the Urn are actually those of Prince Richard. Not dated (potentially Roman) and not sexed...it could even be a girl.
Side note: I wish the King would authorize DNA testing on the remains of the "Princes in The Tower." The discovery of Richard III's remains provided a golden opportunity to scientifically answer that question, and it could be handled with dignity and respect.
It's a good question. I'd hope that they'd be left as they are, no matter the outcome. Either the princes get their recognition, or two unknown boys, identities lost in history, continue to be a compelling mystery.
@@sweptashore Agreed. Leave them in the Abbey, and if they prove to be unknown, as a memorial to the princes, and to all the children who died much too young in that day and age.
As an avid genealogist for many decades, I have come to realize that we honor the dead when we remember and document their life stories. Sincere thanks for your excellent video presentations. 😊
@@barbaradyson6951 I am an American, living in the United States, and so the spelling as I posted it is the correct usage where I am located. Having a university degree in English Literature, I am aware of the differences in the spellings of many words between what is common usage in the UK and what is common usage in the USA. Most linguists concur that this is a simple matter of national preference, and not necessarily an issue of "correct" or "incorrect" spellings. Of course, feel free to disagree.
@@carolineculbertson878I love her! Because I watch her videos I asked to have viewings of my grandparents on my mom’s side when each of them passed. My family hadn’t thought of doing that and getting to spend some time with each of their bodies was really healing. My mom and my uncles actually thanked me for asking for that. I also took a lock of my grandmother’s hair that I keep in my wallet because of Caitlin’s videos.
I was deeply moved by the photo of the examination of the remains. How very tiny she was. We can't begin to imagine the life she lived. I hope she had some happy moments during her short time on Earth.
Thank you so much for this. It actually brought tears to my eyes, those poor children treated as commodities - 5 years old and walking 'down the aisle' with a duke each side of her! And what a sad life her mother had, too, losing husband and only child. You told the story as ever with care and reverence, thank you again.
@@billybeveridge9172 Which is a timely reminder for those people without family to inherit to make a Will so that whatever they leave does some good in the world (please don't bequest it to the big charities). Friends or good neighbours would be very pleased to receive something, whereas, otherwise, it goes to the "Crown". Nothing much has changed in 500 years and the Cabal is planning on taking everything we have once again, returning us all to serfdom, if they get their way ...
What a slice of history Allan. Both children met gruesome deaths in a way. One in the tower and the other a slow death from ingesting lead and arsenic. At least Anne's remains were identified and were treated with grace and dignity. These children certainly were commodities in their short lives and you wonder what they made of the marriage service in St Stephen's chapel!
We still do not know whether or not the skeletons found n the 17th century were the princes or not. Many bodies, some of children, have been found at the Tower. There is simply no evidence that Richard had them killed. If he had, the smart thing to do ( and Richard was a very smart man) would have been to announce their deaths of one the many illnesses affecting children and arrange for a public burial.
The lead and arsenic likely was administered to her as a cure for some illness she may have had. Whether she died of the illness or the cure will remain a mystery. Of course today we now that this cure is no help, to put it mildly. 😖
Does anyone else find it a little sad that the inscription on her coffin was written mainly about her father and not about her? Her use to the nation was identified by her father in her lifetime. I doubt they considered her identity for herself. And she wasn't given an identity in her death.
Fascinating and elegantly melancholy. If ever a biography proved rank and wealth are no guarantee against ill fortune, this is it. Anne's story is as haunting and memorable as fiction: being the last of her line; becoming a ward of the king; her larger-than-life in-laws and her marriage to another child fate (and Richard III) would dispatch cruelly; her physical erasure incidental to the reformation and rediscovery by post-war laborers. Also, a true crime show would look at that toxicology screen and deduce murder by heavy metals. She must have been quite miserably ill at the end--not least from the poisons she'd been administered as medicine. But then, had she survived, would she have been found under a stair with her husband, instead of under a bombsite? May God bless little Anne de Mowbray, the brevity of her life span is scarcely believable against the momentous tides of history that touched it. Well done, Dr. Barton!
No actual evidence that the princes in the Tower were dispatched and if they were, it is just as likely to have been on the watch of the Duke of Buckingham, who clearly wanted to take the crown himself.
Of course she wouldn't have been (and we don't even know who the skeletons under the stairs are , what date or what sex) Plantagenets didn't kill women; that became a Tudor thing.
I'm very grateful for people like the person that posted this video. They share their knowledge with people like myself who didn't discover their love of history until much later in life.
I remember being very excited about the discovery of the coffin when I was at school. I was just beginning to develop an interest in late medieval history that has stayed with me ever since.
@@michaelmontagu3979 There's something nice there. It's tragic that Anne died so young, & sadly we can't change that, but her story has drawn people to Mediaeval history, & at least one has become a historian & writer- that's down to your hard work, of course, but Anne didn't get a chance to do a lot in her life, & I like that she's sort of been able to affect & contribute to the world after her death, 500+ years later.
Amazing how history pushes forward to be seen again. Here it has happened as the city builds to support growth. Contracts stop until everything is properly transferred. Hope her dignity prevailed in a more peaceful setting.
Wonderful information on late Medieval aristocratic life. The story of her several burials vies for attention with that of her marriage! Thank you very much, Allan. Brilliantly told.
Child marriages did happen, of course they were arranged marriages. But mostly they weren't consumated until adulthood, they be aware a very young bride would not survive childbirth. Margaret Beauford was still obscenely young by their standards, but the Tudors were desperate for an heir. She was amazed herself she survived & was unable to have another child, but that's why she was convinced her son had a destiny. He became the future Henry VII.
There is a wonderful book written by Marilyn Roberts on this subject called ‘Lady Anne Mowbray the High and Excellent Princess’ for anyone wanting to learn more. I visited Whitchurch in Shropshire where Anne’s grandfather, the Earl of Shrewsbury, is interred.
It was unusual even then - Edward was determined to bring the Norfolk landholdings into the family. He even changed the law disinheriting Anne's own heirs, so that the lands would remain in the royal family.
@@allanbarton Hmmmm. If a king can self-inflict lese-majeste, Edward did. Nothing compared to the greed of, say, dissolving the monasteries, but I hope he at least become fond of his ward and daughter in law. It all came to ruination, anyway, with the regicidal greed of the Duke of Gloucester.
So interesting- I've _just_ been wondering about the Mowbray & Beauchamp families! All I knew about Anne, though, was that she married Prince Richard then died young- the discovery of her grave was before I was born, but I'm a bit surprised I haven't heard of it cos I'm interested in stories like this. It's sad that she may be yet another person who died from the "treatment" rather than the illness.
I remember the discovery of the body in 1964 . The analysis of her hair is interesting as you say, suggesting that she'd been ill and given some fairly drastic medicine for a long while. Not sure what else the analysis of her skeleton revealed, but I have a vague memory that at some stage someone noticed a dental peculiarity very like that found in one of the skeletons supposed to be Edward V and his brother who were as you mention closely related to her.
Yes, Anne had missing premolar teeth, like the two partial skeletons labelled as Edward, Prince of Wales and Richard Duke of York. All three also share an unusual developmental variant in the bones of the skull. As an osteoarchaeologist, I was asked (years ago) to comment on them for a tv programme. I had not believed that the bones of the 'Princes in the Tower' could really be them, but given that they are the correct age and these shared traits with Anne, I'm now more on the side of them being the princes.
@@melelenath Apparently the dentition is in question and one of the doctors who originally examined them had to admit the tooth may have been lost rather than never present. Also wasn't it the wormian bones that were present on all? The thing is, wormian bones do appear more often in older remains than modern ones; they are not as rare as was made out, as you probably know.
@@sonofherneone of the doctors who examined Anne's teeth, or those of the Tower skeletons? There are excellent xrays of the skeletons from the Tower, so it is possible to see that the premolars (maxillary; I can't remember right now whether it was first or second premolars, though I have the xrays somewhere) were never present. Wormian bones are indeed common, but the Tower skeletons had incomplete symmetric bipartite Inca bones!
During that time in history she might have bred as many as twenty children, and died as a young woman from the trauma of being used as a breeding machine.
Probably very similar with at best her at least being at least somewhat close to adulthood before being married off to secure daddy dearest's wealth and estates, who knows she may very well have been married off into the nobility at their level of prestige.
So Anne and her mother were buried near each other at one point, but the building where the mother was buried survived the blitz but not the part where Anne was? This weekend’s episode you posted was really good!
I don't think the whole area was excavated, they appear to have found the vault just by chance. It is highly likely that Duchess Elizabeth is still buried under the site, which is now covered in office blocks.
@@JiminPalmSprings not dissimilar, so many of the great nobles and royals of England who were buried in monasteries are now under grass or concrete due to Henry VIII.
What a sad story, and very well illustrated. Just wondering whether you used the word 'Ward' when you meant 'Guardian' - or have the meanings of those words changed? I thought 'ward' was the young person who was being protected.
Thank you for this. Anne de Mowbray is such a poignant figure. I have wondered if her estate, and the crown's need of it, played any role in how things unfolded for her husband, Richard of Shrewesbury, Duke of York, who had inherited her.Richard III would have needed it, and you know Henry VII never let go of penny he didn't have to. So, yes, I am suggesting the possibility that this heaping pile of wealth that Anne brought with her in to her marriage was a potential motive in the disappearance of her widowed husband.
Richard III gave the duchy of Norfolk to John Howard, who would have actually been Anne's legitimate heir had Edward IV not married her to his son and made a barely-legal land-grab. Normally if Anne had predeceased her husband, her lands would have gone to her heirs; Edward essentially disinherited those heirs.
I am an American but fascinated with history, especially when it comes to the English royals. It seems the king was just greedy and the church was corrupt and lacked influence when it came to the king's desires. These poor children were used and people were discarded for money and power. Did anyone in these families have a heart? It seems so very dark.
That neat tiny coffin. Made me feel sad for her. Was the cloth or it's decorative stitching preserved. As a needle woman that would be fascinating to see.
Thanks so much for this video. I was not aware that children of that age were actually married. Very interesting and how sad they both died so young (husband).
Young brides were apparently a thing I've found doing family history research going way back to the 1200's. And even in the 1500's too we had someone who was 11yrs old and she had a kid and was already married. Went back through the Leigh's (Legh) family tree to find a couple married at 13. It's hard to understand yet times were tougher back then, but still. There was even someone in their late 40's who married someone in their 20's, and thankfully I only found 1 couple like that. The poor woman, well not poor but still, she must've been creeped out and sad that she might not have had any other say in the matter. We have Talbot's up our family tree too.
@@MsFlamingFlamer Yea, and we had a family member who was 11 when she gave birth. Doesn't even seem possible and I had to go look up more records about her, and it was legit. But yea, royals and other upper class familes were marrying off their kids. Another family member I feel like she must've felt like a dog in a breeding facility. She had like 7 kids when with her last child she died giving birth or soon after.
@MsFlamingFlamer My ancient ancestor is Margaret Beaufort, she may have started life as a child bride forced to have a child while she was still a child but became the founder of the Tudors and way more important than anyone thought
Age of consent was 12 but in reality mostly they were marriages on paper only and the couple didn't live together for several years.heck those family trees again, the chances of an 11 year old giving birth and surviving then were remote.
Such a sad story, that skull was clearly that of a child with her central adult incisors only emerged with her 1st adult molars (6 year molars) and the rest baby teeth. The tiny rounded skull definitely showed a child of 7 - 9 years of age.
It seems to have been only in recent eras that children became something other than just a thing to exploit or use - I read recently that in Roman times babies were just routinely left out in the wild to die if they were not wanted, there was no attempt to rescue them by anyone, regarded as just a big nuisance to be disposed of, and not recognized as people until they grew up to be adults - so hardly surprising that in the middle ages children were still treated as unimportant & manipulated for whatever use came to mind ! Life was so brutal in so many places !
Hi Alan, can you tell me how I can download my pdf version of the May edition of your newsletter. The payment has gone out of my account but I have not received it yet. Thanks🙂
Hello, thanks for your message. Could you drop me a message with your details at antiquarymagazine@gmail.com and I'll be able to sort any issue out. The copies are sent out automatically using a mailing list.
I'm not a Christian myself, so often times while watching yours or any other English history video I wonder ( like many others) what exactly difference between protestant Church , English protestant Church and the catholic Church ..... Please can you make a video on that.... By the way love you
Before the 16th century there were no protestants. The Anglican Church split from the Catholic Church ultimately because Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce. At first it was just political with no religious change but at the time a movement of Protestantism on the continent began to influence people at the English court. The English court imposed Protestantism on the population as an excuse to seize church properties and give them to a new class of gentry. It took many decades for the doctrines to change in practice and there was a lot of resistance as in the pilgrimage of grace and underground catholics. Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Pope who Catholics believe to be the successor to Saint Peter as a minister in the Davidic kingdom of Christ. Catholic also believe in Transubstantiation and sacramental confession Protestants rejected some books in the Catholic Bible. Protestants believe in scripture alone and faith alone while Catholic believe in faith and cooperation with grace for salvation and authoritative tradition and scripture for doctrine.
So, Pope Julius II wanted Michelangelo to be his personal propaganda machine, so he paid him tons of money he didn't have, bankrupting the Vatican and forcing his successor Pope Leo X, to rank up the selling of indulgences (which he did *not* start). Basically, you could pay the Vatican to reduce your time in purgatory for sins (they believed everyone went to purgatory (Hell lite) before going to Heaven, if they weren't already checked off for Hell. A lot of people, especially those too far north of Italy to ever see the new things they were building in Rome, thought this was horribly offensive and irreligious. What was also horribly offensive -- the violence of Julius (the "Warrior Pope"), Leo X's lavish pampering of his pet elephant, and the nepotism heaped on the illegitimate children of all the cardinals (not just the Borgias -- the reason for the bad reputation of that family are all due to xenophobia and Alexander VI's personal rivalry with Julius, who had all positive mentions of his predecessor destroyed). So Martin Luther, a monk in Germany, posted a statement condemning the Vatican -- but not initially proposing breaking away from it. But that is eventually what happened. Then Henry VIII of England (who had actually been kind of close with Leo X apparently?) wanted to divorce his Spanish royal wife Catherine because he was into Anne Boleyn, so he asked the pope (then Clement VII, Leo's cousin), but Rome was currently being sacked by Catherine's nephew Charles V, and Clement was hiding out in the Castel Sant'Angelo (he survived thanks to fortifications built by Alexander VI actually). So, Clement was not going to let Henry cast Catherine (and their daughter Mary) out like that, and not just because of Charles. So Henry decided to become protestant. But he didn't want to be like the Germans and get rid of all the fancy things in church, and he wanted there to be a head priest, he just wanted it to be himself. So he created the church of England. Then that male heir he'd been doing all that murder and divorce for died young and the Catholic Mary succeeded him, and... Sorry long, but you should see the tangents I *didn't* include. Leo and Clement were from the Medici family of Florence, by the way. Lorenzo the Magnificent's son and nephew, respectively. Look up any of these names and have a few fun hours in the wiki hole!
I beg your pardon your grace..... It is very true that I lack some basic knowledge about this great religion, so I just asked for it to someone whom I believe may give me an answer... And by lack of education I didn't knew that Preachers charge for preaching ...... Or perhaps that's the reason for all that splitting in the past...... Well thanks dear.... for reminding me of the real world
One of the main differences is transubstantiation which is the Catholic church believes the blessed bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ ,, whereas the Protestant faith is happy to see it in a more symbolic sense. Catholics are all about the Virgin Mary and saints while Protestants think that worship should focus on the trinity God as Father, son and Holy spirit and not get tangled up with all that confusing other stuff which diverts attention away from the simplicity and purity of christian worship and can, steer people towards idolatry. Oh yeah also Protestants wanted to study and worship in their own language whereas Catholics looked to their priests to deliver the message principally in Latin
It's very disturbing that they married literal toddlers back then, we're not even far off from a time when teenagers were married off as commodities which still happens and is something that I've witnessed my own family doing
Fascinating. Thank you, Allan. I have received my second copy of The Antiquary, and really enjoy it. Your color photos set a wonderful mood to accompany your interesting histories of people and places.
Life in a gilded cage indeed. How fortunate that her coffin included the detailed inscription. I find it very touching that Anne was treated with such dignity and grace when she was returned to the Abbey.
I do, too. Eyes got damp when I saw her small coffin on that lovely hearse-cloth. One star-crossed girl, three times interred. I hope she now, really, rests in peace where she belongs.
Ceremony is everything in England.
When I was studying Anne's life, I was shocked to find out how Henry VII destroyed the chapel she was buried in, which was only 20 years old and built by Elizabeth Woodville, and disinterred Anne's remains, making no move to re-inter them in the abbey, which left her mother to take them elsewhere.
Goodness, they objected how close the children were related to each other, but they didn't object that they were basically toddlers.
Marrying them so young was considered a legal technicality , they would continue to live the normal lives of privileged children until they were older .At least little Anne wasn't in danger of sexual assault by her husband for a reasonable number of years because he was simply too young .It was horrible anyway but child brides are still a fact of life in certain parts of the world and females are most definitely treated as commodities .The fate of little Anne and her mother would bring tears to ones eyes ,not least the agony the little girl would have suffered from ingesting something arsenic .As for the mother noble women who were widowed fled to convents ,it was a place of sanctuary
Royal medieval marriages or' promised' were sometimes already held in infancy to ensure treaties and lands. These were formal declarations signed and witnessed by the nobility or wealthy merchants and sanctified by the Church.. The consummation of that marriage would only take place at a more appropriate age. As to consanguinity, for a goodly sum, the Pope would dispense permission to marry even if closely related. The only true taboo was between siblings which even the Church could not over ride.
Rich people used their children to breed much the same as their hunting dogs. Royal families were the worst. Just look at the Hapsburgs. Not to mention Egyptian pharoahs and Roman emperors.
I think it demonstrates that the nobility regarded marriage as little more than a business arrangement, or a dynastic tool to either increase their wealth or at least keep it within the family.
There's several layers of tragedy to a child's body being laid to rest close to the remains of her widower who was killed while also still a child. 🕯️
There is no actually evidence, however, that the bones in the urn are his. Never dated, never sexed, found so low they would be in the Roman layer (there was a Ro man cemetery nearby).
There is no proof that the bones in the Urn are actually those of Prince Richard. Not dated (potentially Roman) and not sexed...it could even be a girl.
Very likely not him, but some forgotten ancient child. We don't even know the sexes of the bones in the urn.
Side note: I wish the King would authorize DNA testing on the remains of the "Princes in The Tower." The discovery of Richard III's remains provided a golden opportunity to scientifically answer that question, and it could be handled with dignity and respect.
It's a good question. I'd hope that they'd be left as they are, no matter the outcome. Either the princes get their recognition, or two unknown boys, identities lost in history, continue to be a compelling mystery.
@@sweptashore Agreed. Leave them in the Abbey, and if they prove to be unknown, as a memorial to the princes, and to all the children who died much too young in that day and age.
Yes!
That would be a freat idea!
Here in the UK, King Charles III has not objected to the investigation into 500-year-old "Princes in The Tower."
As an avid genealogist for many decades, I have come to realize that we honor the dead when we remember and document their life stories. Sincere thanks for your excellent video presentations. 😊
Just to let you know HONOUR in English is spelt that way. Honor is the american spelling
@@barbaradyson6951 I am an American, living in the United States, and so the spelling as I posted it is the correct usage where I am located. Having a university degree in English Literature, I am aware of the differences in the spellings of many words between what is common usage in the UK and what is common usage in the USA. Most linguists concur that this is a simple matter of national preference, and not necessarily an issue of "correct" or "incorrect" spellings. Of course, feel free to disagree.
We often venerate the dead more than the living.
@carolineculbertson878 I love her, she's so funny and intelligent with a great attitude.
@@carolineculbertson878I love her! Because I watch her videos I asked to have viewings of my grandparents on my mom’s side when each of them passed. My family hadn’t thought of doing that and getting to spend some time with each of their bodies was really healing. My mom and my uncles actually thanked me for asking for that. I also took a lock of my grandmother’s hair that I keep in my wallet because of Caitlin’s videos.
I was deeply moved by the photo of the examination of the remains. How very tiny she was. We can't begin to imagine the life she lived. I hope she had some happy moments during her short time on Earth.
Thank you so much for this. It actually brought tears to my eyes, those poor children treated as commodities - 5 years old and walking 'down the aisle' with a duke each side of her! And what a sad life her mother had, too, losing husband and only child. You told the story as ever with care and reverence, thank you again.
And most of her inheritance greedy king as if hes no got enough sickin 😢
It still happens often...in Muslim areasa
@@billybeveridge9172 Which is a timely reminder for those people without family to inherit to make a Will so that whatever they leave does some good in the world (please don't bequest it to the big charities). Friends or good neighbours would be very pleased to receive something, whereas, otherwise, it goes to the "Crown". Nothing much has changed in 500 years and the Cabal is planning on taking everything we have once again, returning us all to serfdom, if they get their way ...
So sad for all three of those children. Thank you for treating them with such grace.
What a slice of history Allan. Both children met gruesome deaths in a way. One in the tower and the other a slow death from ingesting lead and arsenic. At least Anne's remains were identified and were treated with grace and dignity. These children certainly were commodities in their short lives and you wonder what they made of the marriage service in St Stephen's chapel!
We still do not know whether or not the skeletons found n the 17th century were the princes or not. Many bodies, some of children, have been found at the Tower. There is simply no evidence that Richard had them killed. If he had, the smart thing to do ( and Richard was a very smart man) would have been to announce their deaths of one the many illnesses affecting children and arrange for a public burial.
The lead and arsenic likely was administered to her as a cure for some illness she may have had. Whether she died of the illness or the cure will remain a mystery. Of course today we now that this cure is no help, to put it mildly. 😖
Well, we don't really know about the one in the Tower. Many people thought he was still alive.
Does anyone else find it a little sad that the inscription on her coffin was written mainly about her father and not about her? Her use to the nation was identified by her father in her lifetime. I doubt they considered her identity for herself. And she wasn't given an identity in her death.
Considering that she died as a young child that really isn't all that surprising. Plus, females did not have a public life in the Middle Ages.
If u know ur history u know this is typical. It’s nothing new
She died at like ten yrs old u know.
Wow!
I had NO idea one of "The Princes of the Tower" was married! And she predeceased him!
Great historical content!
Fascinating and elegantly melancholy. If ever a biography proved rank and wealth are no guarantee against ill fortune, this is it. Anne's story is as haunting and memorable as fiction: being the last of her line; becoming a ward of the king; her larger-than-life in-laws and her marriage to another child fate (and Richard III) would dispatch cruelly; her physical erasure incidental to the reformation and rediscovery by post-war laborers. Also, a true crime show would look at that toxicology screen and deduce murder by heavy metals. She must have been quite miserably ill at the end--not least from the poisons she'd been administered as medicine. But then, had she survived, would she have been found under a stair with her husband, instead of under a bombsite? May God bless little Anne de Mowbray, the brevity of her life span is scarcely believable against the momentous tides of history that touched it. Well done, Dr. Barton!
No actual evidence that the princes in the Tower were dispatched and if they were, it is just as likely to have been on the watch of the Duke of Buckingham, who clearly wanted to take the crown himself.
Of course she wouldn't have been (and we don't even know who the skeletons under the stairs are , what date or what sex) Plantagenets didn't kill women; that became a Tudor thing.
I'm very grateful for people like the person that posted this video. They share their knowledge with people like myself who didn't discover their love of history until much later in life.
Very much obliged 😊
I remember being very excited about the discovery of the coffin when I was at school. I was just beginning to develop an interest in late medieval history that has stayed with me ever since.
@@michaelmontagu3979 There's something nice there. It's tragic that Anne died so young, & sadly we can't change that, but her story has drawn people to Mediaeval history, & at least one has become a historian & writer- that's down to your hard work, of course, but Anne didn't get a chance to do a lot in her life, & I like that she's sort of been able to affect & contribute to the world after her death, 500+ years later.
I've seen photos of Anne's skull before. A sad and brief life. I'll have to try to remember to look for her plaque the next time I'm in the Abbey.
Thank you. That was a tragic and fascinating story. I feel sad for her and her mother.
Theirs was a tragic story. Glad you appreciated the video.
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you for a very, very interesting telling of this girl's life (and afterlife).
Amazing how history pushes forward to be seen again.
Here it has happened as the city builds to support growth. Contracts stop until everything is properly transferred. Hope her dignity prevailed in a more peaceful setting.
Wonderful information on late Medieval aristocratic life. The story of her several burials vies for attention with that of her marriage! Thank you very much, Allan. Brilliantly told.
Child marriages did happen, of course they were arranged marriages. But mostly they weren't consumated until adulthood, they be aware a very young bride would not survive childbirth. Margaret Beauford was still obscenely young by their standards, but the Tudors were desperate for an heir. She was amazed herself she survived & was unable to have another child, but that's why she was convinced her son had a destiny. He became the future Henry VII.
Yes. She was 13, right? I heard it was considered scandalous at that time that the marriage was consummated when she was that young.
@@JesusLovesTheLittlePiggiesshe was 12
There is a wonderful book written by Marilyn Roberts on this subject called ‘Lady Anne Mowbray the High and Excellent Princess’ for anyone wanting to learn more. I visited Whitchurch in Shropshire where Anne’s grandfather, the Earl of Shrewsbury, is interred.
Allan, I had heard about Anne when I was very young, but never bothered to find out more. Thank you for a very interesting episode.
Fascinating story! Thank you for honoring Anne.
Glad you appreciated it.
Poor little Anne!! Hopefully, she will be able to FINALLY Rest In Peace!! 😥💔🌹
Thank you for this story of Anne, it's another piece of information that really adds another link to the Royal stories surrounding the Princes.
Thank you Dr. Barton! That was a WOW tale, so sad in so many way. Well told!❤
Thank you. Very interesting. Poor little girl, she was not allowed to rest for so many exhumations and reburials. RIP.
Excellent as always, Mr. Barton. Thank you.
Glad you appreciated it.
Incredible story. I knew that they used to betroth children back then, but didn't know that they actually married such minor children to each other.
It was unusual even then - Edward was determined to bring the Norfolk landholdings into the family. He even changed the law disinheriting Anne's own heirs, so that the lands would remain in the royal family.
@@allanbarton Hmmmm. If a king can self-inflict lese-majeste, Edward did. Nothing compared to the greed of, say, dissolving the monasteries, but I hope he at least become fond of his ward and daughter in law. It all came to ruination, anyway, with the regicidal greed of the Duke of Gloucester.
It brings to mind Margaret Beaufort -- not only married at 12, but impregnated. It's appalling how "valuable" children were used as traded goods.
@@jeffcampbell1555 But we are not sure that Richard killed the boys. I think Henry Tudor had as much reason to do so as York.
@@reinadegrillos as did Margaret Beaufort! She certainly had motive.
Finding her coffin was so extraordinary!
Amazing that the vault she was in survived the Blitz!
Another excellent, touching story from history. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it.
So interesting- I've _just_ been wondering about the Mowbray & Beauchamp families! All I knew about Anne, though, was that she married Prince Richard then died young- the discovery of her grave was before I was born, but I'm a bit surprised I haven't heard of it cos I'm interested in stories like this. It's sad that she may be yet another person who died from the "treatment" rather than the illness.
I remember the discovery of the body in 1964 . The analysis of her hair is interesting as you say, suggesting that she'd been ill and given some fairly drastic medicine for a long while. Not sure what else the analysis of her skeleton revealed, but I have a vague memory that at some stage someone noticed a dental peculiarity very like that found in one of the skeletons supposed to be Edward V and his brother who were as you mention closely related to her.
Yes, Anne had missing premolar teeth, like the two partial skeletons labelled as Edward, Prince of Wales and Richard Duke of York. All three also share an unusual developmental variant in the bones of the skull. As an osteoarchaeologist, I was asked (years ago) to comment on them for a tv programme. I had not believed that the bones of the 'Princes in the Tower' could really be them, but given that they are the correct age and these shared traits with Anne, I'm now more on the side of them being the princes.
@@melelenath Apparently the dentition is in question and one of the doctors who originally examined them had to admit the tooth may have been lost rather than never present. Also wasn't it the wormian bones that were present on all? The thing is, wormian bones do appear more often in older remains than modern ones; they are not as rare as was made out, as you probably know.
@@sonofherneone of the doctors who examined Anne's teeth, or those of the Tower skeletons? There are excellent xrays of the skeletons from the Tower, so it is possible to see that the premolars (maxillary; I can't remember right now whether it was first or second premolars, though I have the xrays somewhere) were never present.
Wormian bones are indeed common, but the Tower skeletons had incomplete symmetric bipartite Inca bones!
Such an interesting video, thank you so much for the work you put into this Allan !
Thank you for this beautiful but also sad story. She had a beautiful vault. Like your videos so very much thank you Dr. Barton Martha
So glad you're enjoying my channel, thank you!
My mother and I loved the Coronation Special Antiquary Magazine xxx
Great to hear, thank you!
A very sad story. Thank you for posting it.
Glad you appreciated the video.
What a sad story. I wonder how her life might have turned out if her father hadn't died so early.
During that time in history she might have bred as many as twenty children, and died as a young woman from the trauma of being used as a breeding machine.
Probably very similar with at best her at least being at least somewhat close to adulthood before being married off to secure daddy dearest's wealth and estates, who knows she may very well have been married off into the nobility at their level of prestige.
So Anne and her mother were buried near each other at one point, but the building where the mother was buried survived the blitz but not the part where Anne was? This weekend’s episode you posted was really good!
I don't think the whole area was excavated, they appear to have found the vault just by chance. It is highly likely that Duchess Elizabeth is still buried under the site, which is now covered in office blocks.
@@allanbarton sad just Richard III n the parking lot
@@JiminPalmSprings not dissimilar, so many of the great nobles and royals of England who were buried in monasteries are now under grass or concrete due to Henry VIII.
Allen, your stories are wonderful. Miss not being in touch, but the Covid interruptions were the reason. Best to the family. Pat
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed the video!
Hi Allan! A most amazing story indeed. Many thanks!
Hi Terry, glad you enjoyed it!
A wonderfully informative video! A great history channel!
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it!
This goes to show you we just don't know what's beneath our feet at any given time.
Another fascinating yet sad story, thank you
Glad you appreciated it.
Fascinating little known story make more please.
Thank you. Allan. Amazing history I didn’t know about🙏
Glad you enjoyed it!
What a sad story, and very well illustrated. Just wondering whether you used the word 'Ward' when you meant 'Guardian' - or have the meanings of those words changed? I thought 'ward' was the young person who was being protected.
Such terribly short, gruesome lives these poor little kids lived.
Very interesting story~ thank you!
Glad you appreciated it, thanks for watching.
I just love your videos. You are a trove of knowledge!
Thank you very much!
OMG I did not know the Tower younger brother was married. Wow. Poor little darling.
So moving that they found her coffin after all those years.
Truly fascinating! Great video!
Glad you appreciated it!
Fascinating and thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Lovely history channel - authentic and fascinating
Thank you very much, glad you're enjoying my videos!
Thankyou for an interesting history on the life of Anne Mowbray sadly we dont seem to know how she died 😢
WOW! Very interesting (as usual)!
Glad you appreciated it.
Thank you for this. Anne de Mowbray is such a poignant figure. I have wondered if her estate, and the crown's need of it, played any role in how things unfolded for her husband, Richard of Shrewesbury, Duke of York, who had inherited her.Richard III would have needed it, and you know Henry VII never let go of penny he didn't have to. So, yes, I am suggesting the possibility that this heaping pile of wealth that Anne brought with her in to her marriage was a potential motive in the disappearance of her widowed husband.
It's more suspect he was killed by his uncle, looking to be king.
Richard III gave the duchy of Norfolk to John Howard, who would have actually been Anne's legitimate heir had Edward IV not married her to his son and made a barely-legal land-grab. Normally if Anne had predeceased her husband, her lands would have gone to her heirs; Edward essentially disinherited those heirs.
Thank you yet AGAIN Dr.!!!
Glad you appreciated it.
Most excellent!!
How fascinating. Thank you.
Very Interesting. Well researched and presented.
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed it!
Very interesting thank you
I am an American but fascinated with history, especially when it comes to the English royals. It seems the king was just greedy and the church was corrupt and lacked influence when it came to the king's desires. These poor children were used and people were discarded for money and power. Did anyone in these families have a heart? It seems so very dark.
Learned something new, I didn’t know that Prince Richard was married.
That neat tiny coffin. Made me feel sad for her. Was the cloth or it's decorative stitching preserved. As a needle woman that would be fascinating to see.
Fascinating, but so sad. What a way to use children back then! 😢
Thank you for a valuable video historically, I never knew.
Glad you appreciated it!
Always so well done.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Poor little girl! Such a short and harsh life! :((
Fascinating
enjoyed this .....poor wee lassie....
Glad you enjoyed the video.
Thanks so much for this video. I was not aware that children of that age were actually married. Very interesting and how sad they both died so young (husband).
Fascinating!
Young brides were apparently a thing I've found doing family history research going way back to the 1200's. And even in the 1500's too we had someone who was 11yrs old and she had a kid and was already married. Went back through the Leigh's (Legh) family tree to find a couple married at 13. It's hard to understand yet times were tougher back then, but still. There was even someone in their late 40's who married someone in their 20's, and thankfully I only found 1 couple like that. The poor woman, well not poor but still, she must've been creeped out and sad that she might not have had any other say in the matter.
We have Talbot's up our family tree too.
Poor Margaret Beaufort was only 13 when she gave birth to Henry VII, only 12 when she conceived.
@@MsFlamingFlamer Yea, and we had a family member who was 11 when she gave birth. Doesn't even seem possible and I had to go look up more records about her, and it was legit.
But yea, royals and other upper class familes were marrying off their kids.
Another family member I feel like she must've felt like a dog in a breeding facility. She had like 7 kids when with her last child she died giving birth or soon after.
@MsFlamingFlamer My ancient ancestor is Margaret Beaufort, she may have started life as a child bride forced to have a child while she was still a child but became the founder of the Tudors and way more important than anyone thought
@@greenghoul157 oh yes, she grew up to be one of the most formidable women of the time. Henry the VII wouldn’t have made it to the throne without her
Age of consent was 12 but in reality mostly they were marriages on paper only and the couple didn't live together for several years.heck those family trees again, the chances of an 11 year old giving birth and surviving then were remote.
Thank you for this interesting subject, 💐
Glad you appreciated it.
Very interesting history! Thank you so much 😊
My pleasure, glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you. I often wondered what happened to Anne.
Extremely interesting thank you once again.
Glad you appreciated it.
Fascinating video. There must have been many loveless marriages made for dynastic purposes. Thank you for this video
Excellent!
Thank you for clarification
Great story,Allan
Glad you enjoyed it.
Such a sad story, that skull was clearly that of a child with her central adult incisors only emerged with her 1st adult molars (6 year molars) and the rest baby teeth. The tiny rounded skull definitely showed a child of 7 - 9 years of age.
Thanks Allan
My pleasure!
love your content mate
Thank you very much, glad you're enjoying my channel!
British history is always so intriguing
Excellent.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
Will a emoji coffee do? 😊☕Enjoyed the content whilst sipping my coffee though. Thanks for the great content. 🙌
I love all your videos on dead bodies!
WE have to remember that medieval 'childhood' was not like our idea of it today.
It seems to have been only in recent eras that children became something other than just a thing to exploit or use - I read recently that in Roman times babies were just routinely left out in the wild to die if they were not wanted, there was no attempt to rescue them by anyone, regarded as just a big nuisance to be disposed of, and not recognized as people until they grew up to be adults - so hardly surprising that in the middle ages children were still treated as unimportant & manipulated for whatever use came to mind ! Life was so brutal in so many places !
Hi Alan, can you tell me how I can download my pdf version of the May edition of your newsletter. The payment has gone out of my account but I have not received it yet. Thanks🙂
Hello, thanks for your message. Could you drop me a message with your details at antiquarymagazine@gmail.com and I'll be able to sort any issue out. The copies are sent out automatically using a mailing list.
@@allanbarton Will do Alan, thanks. I received your special Coronation edition by post, it's very good🙂.
May Anne rest in peace. 💖🙏
Such a short strange and sad life. I wonder if she was disposed of through poisoning.
Thanks
Glad you appreciated it.
I remember the coffin bring found...the excitement....but I never did know the outcome. Thank you for telling us about it.
I'm not a Christian myself, so often times while watching yours or any other English history video I wonder ( like many others) what exactly difference between protestant Church , English protestant Church and the catholic Church ..... Please can you make a video on that.... By the way love you
Before the 16th century there were no protestants. The Anglican Church split from the Catholic Church ultimately because Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce. At first it was just political with no religious change but at the time a movement of Protestantism on the continent began to influence people at the English court. The English court imposed Protestantism on the population as an excuse to seize church properties and give them to a new class of gentry. It took many decades
for the doctrines to change in practice and there was a lot of resistance as in the pilgrimage of grace and underground catholics. Protestants do not believe in the authority of the Pope who Catholics believe to be the successor to Saint Peter as a minister in the Davidic kingdom of Christ. Catholic also believe in Transubstantiation and sacramental confession Protestants rejected some books in the Catholic Bible. Protestants believe in scripture alone and faith alone while Catholic believe in faith and cooperation with grace for salvation and authoritative tradition and scripture for doctrine.
Research Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation.
So, Pope Julius II wanted Michelangelo to be his personal propaganda machine, so he paid him tons of money he didn't have, bankrupting the Vatican and forcing his successor Pope Leo X, to rank up the selling of indulgences (which he did *not* start). Basically, you could pay the Vatican to reduce your time in purgatory for sins (they believed everyone went to purgatory (Hell lite) before going to Heaven, if they weren't already checked off for Hell. A lot of people, especially those too far north of Italy to ever see the new things they were building in Rome, thought this was horribly offensive and irreligious. What was also horribly offensive -- the violence of Julius (the "Warrior Pope"), Leo X's lavish pampering of his pet elephant, and the nepotism heaped on the illegitimate children of all the cardinals (not just the Borgias -- the reason for the bad reputation of that family are all due to xenophobia and Alexander VI's personal rivalry with Julius, who had all positive mentions of his predecessor destroyed). So Martin Luther, a monk in Germany, posted a statement condemning the Vatican -- but not initially proposing breaking away from it.
But that is eventually what happened.
Then Henry VIII of England (who had actually been kind of close with Leo X apparently?) wanted to divorce his Spanish royal wife Catherine because he was into Anne Boleyn, so he asked the pope (then Clement VII, Leo's cousin), but Rome was currently being sacked by Catherine's nephew Charles V, and Clement was hiding out in the Castel Sant'Angelo (he survived thanks to fortifications built by Alexander VI actually). So, Clement was not going to let Henry cast Catherine (and their daughter Mary) out like that, and not just because of Charles. So Henry decided to become protestant. But he didn't want to be like the Germans and get rid of all the fancy things in church, and he wanted there to be a head priest, he just wanted it to be himself. So he created the church of England.
Then that male heir he'd been doing all that murder and divorce for died young and the Catholic Mary succeeded him, and...
Sorry long, but you should see the tangents I *didn't* include. Leo and Clement were from the Medici family of Florence, by the way. Lorenzo the Magnificent's son and nephew, respectively.
Look up any of these names and have a few fun hours in the wiki hole!
I beg your pardon your grace..... It is very true that I lack some basic knowledge about this great religion, so I just asked for it to someone whom I believe may give me an answer... And by lack of education I didn't knew that Preachers charge for preaching ...... Or perhaps that's the reason for all that splitting in the past...... Well thanks dear.... for reminding me of the real world
One of the main differences is transubstantiation which is the Catholic church believes the blessed bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ ,, whereas the Protestant faith is happy to see it in a more symbolic sense. Catholics are all about the Virgin Mary and saints while Protestants think that worship should focus on the trinity God as Father, son and Holy spirit and not get tangled up with all that confusing other stuff which diverts attention away from the simplicity and purity of christian worship and can, steer people towards idolatry. Oh yeah also Protestants wanted to study and worship in their own language whereas Catholics looked to their priests to deliver the message principally in Latin
It's very disturbing that they married literal toddlers back then, we're not even far off from a time when teenagers were married off as commodities which still happens and is something that I've witnessed my own family doing
Very interesting
Glad you appreciated this account.
Fascinating. Thank you, Allan. I have received my second copy of The Antiquary, and really enjoy it. Your color photos set a wonderful mood to accompany your interesting histories of people and places.
Thank you very much, glad you're enjoying my magazine!
Fascinating.
Glad you appreciated it.