The First Royal Pretender To Henry VII's Throne | Lambert Simnel | The Wars Of The Roses
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2023
- Once Henry VII took the throne of England, his position as king was threatened almost immediately - starting with the first royal pretender, Lambert Simnel. Was the son of an Oxfordshire organ-maker really the son of George, Duke of Clarence? Who stood to gain from Henry VII off the throne? This video looks at the events surrounding Lambert Simnel and the first attempt to remove Henry VII from his crown...
For my images and footage, thanks to:
Pexels
Pixabay
Wikimedia Commons, especially:
King of Hearts
William Murphy
Many of my images in this video were made with Midjourney, see if you can spot which ones!
I strive to always credit everyone whose images I use, and try as much as possible to use images freely in the public domain (purchased where not possible) - please let me know if I have missed you so I can give you due credit.
Folk Round by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Burglar by Kuro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: / free-medieval-backgrou... - Розваги
Wonderful video. Lambert Simnel was used as a pawn but at least he wasn't executed and ended up in the Royal household. When royal youngsters are disappeared it's not a surprise that there were pretenders emerging anywhere to take the chance. Can't wait for your upcoming video on Perkin Warbeck whose preparation was more elaborate and exquisite. Excellent work throughly well documented and beautifully narrated. Thank you 🙏🏻
You're right, at least Lambert had a fair shot at life after being a pretender! 😅 It could have gone badly for him, but luckily Henry spared him as he could. The Perkin one is definitely a lot more twisty-turny, as there's a lot more mystery around his story, and it was definitely a more elaborate plan!
"Perkin´s" preparation was more elaborate and exquisite. because he was Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.
@@HistorysForgottenPeopleAye it certainly was. Also loved your video on Perkin Warbeck as well. Thank you so much for all your wonderful content 🙏🏻
@@Suuusan28 A great deal of interesting new evidence is emerging, and this story is far from over!
The fact Henry VII didn’t execute Lambert is one of the reasons I like him -he forgave where he could, to quote History Calling-. Granted, for us, it would be the bare minimum to spare a little boy who was most likely a pawn, but we have examples from earlier AND later of monarchs who didn’t show such mercy…
You're absolutely right (and History Calling too!), Henry definitely tried to pardon where he could. Even throughout his reign, he used taxation and exile more than execution. He did still have people executed, of course, but by medieval standards, he was fairly lenient. Even giving Lambert a place in his household was something he didn't have to do.
I'm sure Lambert ended up as a scullion within Henry's kitchen, eventually rising in rank to become Henry's cheif falconer. A prestigious title at the time.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople Exactly! Even after pardoning him, he could’ve left him to fend for himself, yet he didn’t. I like the lad :) He was also a good husband to Elizabeth of York, a good (albeit rather distant, after EoY’s death) father, and did leave, through his infamous miserliness, the Kingdom in a good financial state!
Certainly more lenient than his son or grand daughters. That’s a low bar though 😅
@@monteverdi1567 Protestants aside, though, Mary I was quite forgiving, surprisingly. In 1553 she barely executed anyone, and I saw (though ai haven’t yet verified it) that most of the Protestants burned had radical religious beliefs, and were actually to be executed before she ascend the throne. I am still to check it, though.
But yea, the Tudors were, generally, ruthless…
I first learnt about Lambert Simnel from Horrible Histories and its a great story. Would make a great historical comedy movie. Nice work as always.
You're right, it would be great as a historical comedy film! I would pay good money to see that. 😂
I freaking love that sketch!! 🤩 Mat Baynton is brilliant as Henry VII, in that & the Henry VII song.
@@beth7935 agreed.
Poor 😢 Lambert. He was A pawn and surely would have been caat aside if the rebellion had success.
Absolutely agree - he was barely mentioned in his own story, really. 😞 Those who wanted rid of Henry VII definitely took note of where they went wrong with Lambert, and made sure they coached their next 'pretender' (Perkin Warbeck) much more thoroughly.
I heard about poor Lambert from the BBC series The Shadow Of The Tower. It was about Henry VII and the founding of the Tudor Dynasty. I saw it on UA-cam and I went crazy for it so I went out and bought it on DVD. I also bought the BBC Series The Six Wives Of Henry VIII, it stars the late Keith Michell. He played a magnificent King Henry. Better than Johnathan Rys Meyers in my opinion.
Lambert became a scullion in Henry's kitchen, rising in importance to become Henry's cheif falconer.
Or was that Perkin Warbeck?
No, you're right, that was Lambert - I do mention that at the end of the video. 😊
thank you...ron
I sincerely hope that King Charles III tests the bones found in The Tower so we can all know once and for all who they belong to.
That would only be possible if there was something to compare them with. Logically. Also there is all kind of mess in the urn so everything is contaminated with everything. And those bones were found in the Roman (original) layer of The Tower.
Hi, awesome live history video I enjoyed it. How are you doing? I'm doing well. All your history videos are always enjoyable. Have a great day see you next video 😊
Lambert Simnel is homaged twice in A Song of Ice and Fire with the characters Aegon VI Targaryen and Gaemon Palehair.
I heard that somewhere! I'm going to have to reread those books. 😊
Those dear, darling boys.
All of this staeted because Richard III and his supporters didn't want A boy-king.
Actually, nobody wanted Woodville's won, a 'witch's child,' on the throne.
@@cassandrarose11 Well, the joke on them. The current British royal family is directly descendant from Edward-Not Richard III. And also, it wasn't wise to replace Edward the Fifth with his cousin; Edward of Middleham, who never going to reach adulthood.
After catastrophic "rein" of H6 nobody wanted another child king.
@@Suuusan28 To be fair Henry VI's problems started in his adult reign rather than his minority.
Can anyone tell me, was Guy of Warwick an actual person living in this time?
Guy of Warwick was just a romantic character, probably made up in the early 13th century. It didn't stop the Earls of Warwick from laying claim to his legend though, and they acquired several 'artefacts' that were supposedly his, placing them in Warwick Castle under guard. It was a little like the medieval royalty claiming to be descended from King Arthur, even though we have no solid evidence King Arthur ever existed except as a romantic tale.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople thankyou for that info. Very interesting.
Now, getting down to business :)
Who’s your fav and least fav English (later British) Princess of Wales? My favourites (can’t choose just one😭) are Katherine of Aragon and Caroline of Ansbach. As for least fav… maybe Princess Augusta? But tbh I see potential in them all.
Hello, I recommend you watch Eva Schubert. She did A series on Isabella of Castile.
@@DarthDread-oh2ne Thanks!!
@@lfgifu296 She also make her own music videos.
Oh, cool, I've not really thought about this one! Great question. 😊
I think my favourite is Caroline of Brunswick. She had to put up with a lot, but she kept her chin up through it all. She had a pretty awful childhood as she was very severely controlled and prevented from doing many thing normal for her time (like dancing at a ball), but when this happened once during a ball when she was a teenager, she faked being in labour and made her parents call a midwife. When she midwife turned up, Caroline stopped and remarked something like, "You won't stop me dancing at another ball, then?" She had to marry George IV who turned up to their ceremony drunk and already illegally married to his lover, and he was horrible to her from the start. They had one daughter, who Caroline apparently doted on, and in later years she was prevented from seeing her, as well as several other children she had adopted. She never gave into George's demands for a divorce either.
Least favourite?...that one IS tough as I don't really dislike any of them! Though I think I agree with you on Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. I feel quite sorry for her early years as Princess of Wales, as it sounds as though the British royal family were pretty horrible to her and manipulative. But later on after her husband died, she wouldn't let her children mix with many people outside the royal family, and then she tried to prevent her daughter-in-law Queen Charlotte from making friends or contacts at court, and apparently didn't have a good relationship with her. It sounds almost as though Augusta's way of dealing with how she had been treated was to then treat others the same way, which isn't really a very nice way to go about in the world! So I'll put her down as my least favourite.
What if the boys survived the Tower but still did not survive their youth? This strikes me as one possibility. They may have been spirited away only to have died later. Lack of evidence is not always indicative as to what happened. And what about anybody who'd perhaps hated one of their parents being a part of Richard III's court who might have done something horrid without Richard's permission? Old grudges can be secretly held. Making Richard look bad may have been a goal. Just because official records state that only a small handful of ppl would have had access to the boys does not mean that nobody with enough money could have bribed their way into the Tower. What's in writing is not always what happened in reality.
Perhaps it's because my mother was Ricardian. IDK. I do know that I've never been inclined to think of Richard as having been the killer of the boys. Despite any clemency shown to the figurehead, Lambert (or John), I have never liked Henry VII at all - or his son. Look at his eyes in Henry VII's portraits. Not trustworthy. You can learn a lot about ppl from their eyes. Portraits weren't photos, after all. They had to be sat for. An expression like that which was held for so long a time leaves me doubtful as to his character. And royal portraits had to be given royal approval. The expression in his eyes in his National Portrait Gallery portrait is therefore telltale. To me, he does not appear to have been a nice man.
You're right, the idea of the boys surviving the Tower but not for long did cross my mind as well - it kind of fits, to my mind, with the botched escape attempt, in which they could theoretically have got away but still died afterwards. And while lack of evidence doesn't prove either way, historians must rely on the available evidence, because otherwise you look for things to fit the answer you want instead. The other issue is that even if Richard had no direct hand in the boys' deaths, he was still responsible for their well-being.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople You're right. He was still responsible for their well-being. But being human, he also couldn't be everyplace at once. I just have never been inclined to think of him as having been the killer of the boys.
Who do you think would have made the Greatest English King
Lambert Simnel or Perkin Worbeck?
Ooh, that's an interesting question! Definitely Perkin Warbeck, hands down. Simnel was a pawn in the hands of others, and although it could be argued he might have changed when he grew older, it's likely he wouldn't have stayed in power/alive long enough. Warbeck seems to have been a fast learner, whether he really knew courtly manner and rules from birth or not, and he was certainly charismatic and likeable enough.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople out of these that never got to be king
Simon De Montfort
Duke of York (Richard III Father)
The Black Prince
King Henry I son (Ship Wrecked)
The Black Prince
Prince Arthur (Henry VIII older brother)
Prince Henry (Charles I older brother)
I often wonder about people who claim they are kings/princes/dukes etc, do they genuinely believe that, or are they fully aware they are lying? I know you can plant false memories in children and manipulate them to believe things that never happened but I doubt they knew how to do that in those times. Now it’s easy to prove these people wrong through DNA/passports etc, but back in the day it must have been hard, considering most people didn’t even know what the royal family actually looked like, so anyone could say “I’m the king’s son” and most people would believe it!
That's an interesting point, actually! I wonder if Lambert was young enough to believe it when someone said to him, "You're definitely the Earl of Warwick!" I suppose at his age he might not have questioned it too much. Perkin Warbeck, on the other hand, I'm sure did not think he was Richard of Shrewsbury. But again, as you say, maybe he convinced himself he was related in some way.
And sometimes they are who they say they are.....Yes, most people didn´t know their sovereign, that´s why they travel so often. The community of barons and other wealthy and powerful people was quite small (inbreeding) so they knew each other, the same with foreign ambassadors. So just to say “I’m the king’s son” wouldn´t persuade no one.