Dr Kat and Framing Richard III?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Richard III is arguably one of history's greatest villains. Is his reputation well deserved? Or, is he the victim of a Tudor / Shakespearean "frame job"?
I hope you enjoy this video and find it interesting!
Please subscribe and click the bell icon to be updated about new videos.
Also, if you want to get in touch, please comment down below or find me on social media:
Instagram: / katrina.marchant
Twitter: / kat_marchant
Email: readingthepastwithdrkat@gmail.com
Intro / Outro song: Silent Partner, "Greenery" [ • Greenery - Silent Part... ]
Images:
Screenshot taken from www.richardiii.net
Anonymous portrait of Richard III (c.1504-20). © Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (2016)
William Sherlock’s image of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham (18th century). Held by the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
Anonymous portrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort (second half of 16th century). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Anonymous (Netherlandish) portrait of Henry VII (1505). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Quoted texts:
William Shakespeare’s “The Life and Death of Richard the Third” (c.1592-3)
“The historie of king Edward the fift, and king Richard the third vnfinished, written by maister Thomas More then one of the vnder shiriffes of London, about the yeare of our Lord 1513, according to a copie of his owne hand, printed among his other workes.” From Holinshed’s Chronicles (1587).
My thoughts? Who needs soap operas when we have English history ♥️♥️♥️. Love this channel, truly enjoy the videos and reading the comments from viewers, as well.
Me too! So happy to have found it!
And me! I'm binge watching through all the videos. Loving every minute of it, even if some of it goes over my head :)
Bloody murderous families. Only the most ruthless survived. What terrifying times.
There is a reason game of thrones was inspired by the war of the roses I suppose XD
It aggravates me to no end when shows, movies, etc, bollocks up historical facts when the truth is perfect for entertainment purposes just as it is!! Could not resist commenting, you couldn't be more right!
Pretty hypocritical for the Tudors to criticize Richard III for (allegedly) having his political rivals killed.
The Tudors raised judicial murder to a fine art. Most of the people they had killed did not deserve it. I include the executions under Henry VIII, Edward VI (even if they were ordered by his uncles), Mary I, and Elizabeth I -- murderers all.
I am w@@samanthafordyce5795Zach ers I wd wexutzet🥧
Well, they were children
Your proof? Shakespeare? Thomas Moore (aka John Morton)? Polydore Virgil? John Rous? All of these accounts of Richard have been proven false.
Well @Moose as 500 odd years have separated us from living eye witnesses, one has to consider contemporaneous written accounts (this removes the Bard from the discussion).
Part of our trouble was this was a time in history of which there have been many where killing could happen for nothing more serious than a rumor. Certainly Sovereigns pretty much held to this methodology as their divine right until the 18th century when it faded as their go to position for anyone who irked them. Unless someone finds a fully vetted and bullet proof 500 year old confession of “real” killers. Poor old Richard III will never, ever be suspicion free. Lucky he probably couldn’t care less, then and certainly even more now.
This reminds me of the French nobleman accused of killing children and torturing them etc but in reality he was just a landowner of some important land that the French king wanted. Remember y’all, history is written by the victors
@Leonie Romanes Gilles De Rais.
Such a fascinating story, his.
Though, I don't know how fake his ill reputation has been. He did afterall confess murdering kiddies, no? 😬
I love how they did find Richard III remains.
to true
Bellatrix. Kate .....yes but the prosecutor got his lands. No bodies were ever found and it would be nearly impossible to burn a body in a bedroom fireplace (it would not get hot enough). There are no records of missing children before that. No graves then or now, as the world grows and new building foundations are put in place, have been found. To me, none of the “confessions” make sense. I think he was a victim of the persecution of the crown and/or church.
Surprisingly not all history is written by the victors, or should I say popular history. A classic case is Scottish history with the Jacobite rebellion and the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Most Scots today and those of Scots descent are convinced that the civil war, which it was, was a war between England and Scotland. This was not the case. It was a war between two royal families of the UK. There were more Scots fighting against him at Culloden than for him. They had good reason to, as their grandfathers were savagely persecuted by his grandfather in the "killing times" whether they were innocent or not.
Later Jacobite sympathisers won the propaganda war by composing beautiful ballads and songs such as "the Skye Boat" song and "Will Ye No Come Back Again" which are sung by just about every Scot even those whose ancestors were opposed to him.
What was Shakespeare going to do, Elizabeth I was Henry VII's granddaughter and noted to be very hard on anyone who questioned her right to rule. He wrote the only paly he could write.
play not paly.
I suppose spell checker couldn’t respond...I make all kinds of typing errors...don’t be so picky!
@@hydrolito Get a life.
He simply could have chosen not to write any play about Richard III.
Shakespeare largely based his play on Thomas More’s history. As far as Shakespeare knew Richard III was a villain.
I admire Richard due to his scoliosis. I read that after his bones were found it was measured to be up to 80 degrees. I have had scoliosis since around age 11. I had 2 curves. One was 30 and one was around 70 degrees. I lived a normal life. I went to college and worked as an RN. By the time I was 53 my scoliosis had progressed to the point where I had a hunch back, loss of balance, problems with breathing, pain and more. I never rode a medieval war horse and rode into battle!
I don’t think Richard killed his nephews. But I do wonder why he never spoke of them again.
Have you seen the documentary where they find a young man with a similar curvature to Richard III's and make armor for him and train him to ride a horse and fight with a sword? It's really interesting to think that someone with that level of physical disadvantage could engage in medieval warfare.
@@zarasbazaar What's it called? That sounds so interesting!
I believe it was called 'Richard III: The New Evidence'. You can also look up Dominic Smee -- he's the Richard 'body double' in terms of both curvature and having the same, slender body type. It offered amazing insight into the factors Richard would have had to consider as well as offered a first hand perspective on how someone with scoliosis could indeed be as agile and dominating as anyone else on the battlefield. I highly recommend it!
@@cardwitch91 I saw that! It was very interesting but I wasn't sure why it was necessary. It didn't prove that it could be done, Richard HAD done it. Of course Richard began his training very early in life which would have given him a serious advantage over the fellow in the documentary. I was really more impressed that fellow could learn to do it at all, never mind with scoliosis!
I saw an interview that posits that Lambert Simnel actually was Edward V (the older prince “in the Tower”). He was crowned in Ireland: how would so many nobles have given an actual coronation, a deeply religious ceremony, to an imposter? In an age when one’s immortal soul was on the line, it isn’t likely, according to the historian interviewed. There’s other circumstantial evidence, too, that the princes survived into Henry VII’s reign, but that point stood out most to me.
I am a member of the Canadian branch of the Richard III Society. I love studying this topic. The late Middle Ages are fantastic, but then all of history is. Dr Kat does a good job on the topic and all her topics.
The English branch of Richard III was so troubled that Matthew Lewis quit or was either released of his duties. Same with Philla Gregory. Can you believe that?! You'll have to look it up because I can't remember much anymore. I subscribed to her because I Dr Kat, also.
You tuber Matt Lewis does a marvellous job of giving credence to the Rule of Richard and has written a book. Loyalty binds me
I am as well.
@@Moose.-vy5ye I'm a member of the American branch. Have you read "The Princes in the Tower"? The new information uncovered is fascinating and leading to some important questions, some still at the speculative state. The huge re-publication of Buc's "History of King Richard the Third" has very significant content including the "minutes" of the Parliament's request to Richard to take the crown, which I cannot recall reading elsewhere. It of course dates from the early 17th century and is filled with fascinating detail. Another excellent treatment is Carson's "The Maligned King". Dr. Kat's information here is mostly good, but there is new research and evidence regarding those two "imposters" who may not have been any such thing. Nor is it certain that Henry actually believed them to be. This subject only gets more and more fascinating the more we learn!!
@@lefantomer Note the imposters did not come forward until after Elizabeth Woodville, their mother, died. She would have settled it immediately. As could have Henry 7's wife, their sister.
Brilliant! I became one of your subscribers after your first video(Anne de Cleves) and this is the fourth I watch, all great!
the brutal taking over of the Prince of Wales on his way to London, the coronation date delays, Elizabeth Woodville seeking sanctuary: the context suggests a coup by Richard. In such a context, his killing all competitors to the throne would seem (sadly) logical. Woodville would have crept out of sanctuary to negotiate later because she was afraid and thought she had to ingratiate herself to the bully in order to survive. Her alliance with the Tudor cause also suggests that she really didn't trust Richard III. If he had been a kindly uncle letting her boys free, why would she have started an unlikely friendship with the Tudors/Lancasters?
These are all great points - however, as I enjoy being contrary, she does seem to distance herself from Tudor prior to leaving sanctuary by trying to recall her son from his side. Also, we could argue that Elizabeth Woodville's earliest allegiance was to the Lancastrians. Her first husband, the father of her elder children, died at the battle of St Albans fighting for the Lancastrian cause - could this have played a part?
Probably because she wanted her daughter on the throne. If not her boys then at least her daughter. Henry Tudor was the way to get Elizabeth on the throne as Queen. So why not week an alliance with the Tudors
Unless someone invents a time machine, goes back in time to see what really happened, we will be debating this forever.
Probably so. But I'll never stop defending him.
@@l.plantagenet You won’t be the only one...
The more history you learn, the more it all looks like one big Rashomon plot.
Here's a possibility that no one has presented. What if the two boys jumped inside a chest while playing and the lid latched shut, causing them to suffocate?
@@tammyw.5781 That's not outside the realm of possibility. We've had any number of children suffocate in old refrigerators until we stopped putting positive locks on them and went to magnets.
For me, visiting this channel is like going back to school but the lessons are much more interesting now than they were back then😊
Had the Princes been alive when rumours of their deaths abounded then Richard would have produced them. That's just common sense. Everything is propaganda and the fact that Richard spun NO propaganda re the fate of these boys speaks volumes. He didn't because he couldn't. Whether they died of neglect or design and at who's orders/hand is the only mystery.
If you look at Richard's career as a whole you will find it was a history of consistent loyalty to his brother Edward and his reputation for fair dealing and justice as the Warden of the North. He fought consistently for his brother and for the lower classes and had more sympathy for them than any other person of note until the 18th/19th centuries. The only time he openly disagreed with Edward was when Edward invaded France and allowed himself to be bought off and he refused to accept a pension from the French king as he believed this was dishonourable. He had no reason to do away with his nephews, he was already king and believed he had good reason to be to Either he had removed them from the Tower to lives where they would be unrecognised and hidden from those who would use them to ferment rebellion.
the one person who had reasons in spades to remove the two princes was Margaret Beaufort. Why was she so keen for Henry Tudor to return from Britany; he was hardly likely to have fared well under Richard and even if he disposed of Richard there were the two princes in his way to the throne. Margaret was fanatically devoted to her son and to the Lancastrian cause and would have had no compunction in removing two "Yorkist brats".She would also have had access to the tower through her husband, Thomas, Lord Stanley -: he who so loyally supported Richard that deserted him on the battle field at Bosworth. Looking at Richard's life as a whole his actions and his reputation just don't square with him killing two young lads.
@@janiced9960 Margaret didn't have the reach to gain access to the tower
Yes. Moreover, why would he suffer these potential claimants to the throne to live? Their very existence was a threat to his rule.
Richard III did not have the same motive that Henry VII did, since it was Henry who reversed their illegitimacy. & it was Henry VII *&* Henry VIII who set about getting rid of *everyone* who had Plantagenet blood in their veins, other than their *own children*.
I don't know if he had the same motive, but he couldn't find the boy even though they're men who killed them told them where they were. He was a miser.
By reversing the illegitimacy of his wife-to-be, Henry VII made her older brother the rightful king.
@@susaniacuone5758 Therefore, the boys had to be dead in order for him to have a fig leaf of legitimacy. I still think it was Margaret Beaufort. She was ruthless and conniving. It was her husband whose defection at the battle of Bosworth enabled Henry's victory.
Henry wasn’t in England when the princes where imprisoned and when he came to power in 1485 the princes were already believed to be dead,
And ‘get rid everyone who had Plantagenet blood’
I’m going to assume you mean murder, what about Elizabeth’s sisters, what about the earl of Warwick and his sister and what about Elizabeth Plantagenet’s children?
@@susaniacuone5758 Henry VII won his crown by conquest so bloodline became pretty irrelevant
It's a bit hard to believe that Richard would go into exile with and fight for his brother (the future king) only to kill his two sons once he was no longer in the picture. I feel like there was some bad blood between the queen dowager and richard perhaps he felt that his position and lands (I believe he was the second wealthiest in the country) would be threatened and as a result he took power and the sons, became fodder. But again why would someone be threatened by illegitimate children when you already have strong backing.ALSO, can we take any credence with a play? You have to remember that Shakespeare as far as I'm concerned wrote this for Elizabeth the 1st who by the way was the granddaughter of Henry7th. creating a sensationalized story of decrowning a usurper and a murderer in order to right wrongs and give a divine ruler. This would garner much favor for Shakespeare.
Or maybe I'm just a sucker for the Richard portrayed in The White Queen idk"
It's also a bit hard to believe that, even after a Parliamentary act stating they were illegitimate, Richard still felt the boys were enough of a threat to kill them when he left the Earl of Warwick, who also had a better primogeniture claim than him and was also passed over by Parliament, totally alone. Didn't touch him. No one who believes Richard killed/ordered the murder of the princes has ever been able to explain that one.
2021 has definitely been the winter of our discontent, made summer by Dr. Kat.
Richard lived in very brutal times...it would be unfair for us to judge him by today’s standards. I’ve always felt that the Woodvilles were poised to usurp the position of the Plantagenets... and there were others who had much to lose had the Woodvilles ascended. In my mind, Richard was not all bad nor all good. Definitely one of history’s greatest mysteries.
I think that is fair and balanced answer. He had his moments. Like declaring his mil dead to get enormous wealth and castles. But I think others would have had more of a reason than him, but as you said he was a man of his times.
@ Brooksy Brooks
And didn’t he institute many good things not just for nobility, but for the common people such as affording poor people legal representation, and standardized measures when it came to buying and selling........and I think Habeas corpus ...
Me
Were the Woodvilles the Seymours of this reign with their desire for power
@@l.plantagenet I'm sorry, but what does 'declaring his mil dead' mean?
Thank you for this considered and fact-directed video. I would like to toss in a couple of cents:
1. Thomas Stanley became constable of the Tower after the 1483 rebellion. He is the husband of Margaret Beaufort, and would have the same access to the Tower that Buckingham would have had.
2. William Stanley, younger brother of Thomas, was beheaded by Henry VII as a result of his support of Perkin Warbeck. William Stanley admitted that he wasn't sure about Warbeck's identity, but was more willing to support a Richard of York than Henry. There was very little that the Stanleys didn't try to be sure of. To my way of thinking, if a Stanley wasn't sure about what happened to the Princes, no one should be.
3. The curvature of the spine in Richard's body would have been scoliosis, which is a lateral curvature, not the sort of curvature popularized in later histories and Shakespeare. It's theorized the condition would have started development during Richard's adolescence.
4. An earlier history than Holinshed is that of Polydore Vergil, who was an Italian humanist. He moved to England about 1502 and was hired to write a history of England by Henry VII. He is among the first to write negatively about Richard III.
I had a lot more, but stopped, because it was a LOT more. I am a member of the Richard III Society, but do try to be balanced in my views, which are that the boys likely were not killed in the Tower, but sent away either to Sheriff Hutton and/or overseas, possibly to Burgundy. If and how long they survived after that is up to question. I don't know if Warbeck was young Richard. It's tempting, but I'm not sure.
Thank you again for this thoughtful and informative presentation.
Well put.. I’m also an English Ricardian..
You have my respects, your society kept at it no matter what came up to stop you, Richard the Third was going to be laid to rest, but to have him laid to rest as a King is amazing, I lake my hat of to you all,
@@patriciatreslove146 Thank you, Patricia: the discovery of the body was an amazing combination of research, detective work, cooperation, and sheer luck. It was proof that such an effort can, indeed, yield results. I do wish I'd been there for the reburial! I was at Bosworth in 1985, the quincentennial of the battle, and met very wonderful people on that trip.
The Society and Richard himself have taught me many lessons in research, doubt leading to discovery, keeping an open mind, and in the most important lesson in history, taught in two words by our college history professor: "Question everything."
it was surprising to see how well Richard III possibly could perform as a warrior, seeing the video with Dominic Smee, suffring from the same amount of scoliosis as the king, as a body double and with a short time of training did all that was required of a king who went into battle.
@@kamion53 Yes, it was impressive; Dominic actually attended one of our society AGMs and spoke at length and beautifully about his training and how he felt about it. He and his mom, who came with him, were lovely, generous people, and we all came away with appreciation and understanding for both Dominic and Richard.
You forgot to mention that King Edward IV had appointed Richard as Lord Protector if he should die before his son reached his majority. This must have been discussed between the two brothers. The reason for this being to thwart the rapacious Woodvilles from taking control of the boy king. Added to this, Richard was not made aware of his brother’s death immediately as he should have been. It was obvious the Woodvilles were trying to prevent Richard from taking that position.
But Richard would only be Lord Protector until the boy’s coronation.
If Elizabeth Woodville thought that Henry or his mother had her sons killed, why did she consent to her daughter marrying Henry? If she wasn't afraid of her and her children's lives, why did she hide in a sanctuary? That wasn't just a part of Shakespear's imagination, it was reality. We don't need a Shakespeare to draw our own conclusions.
She came out of sanctuary during Richards life. And sent her other children to him. Why was she afraid? Because she knew she didn't tell Richard on time about his brother's death, though he was legally Lord Protector and yet, she ordered her brother's to bring her son to HER not to Richard, as was supposed to happen. Violating the King's will. She also (along with Margaret Beaufort) were disinherited because they have letters PROVING they were both conspiring for Henry Tudor. This is fact. And Richard didn't put either ladies to death. He forgave them. When the sentence should've been death.
@@ashleyleonard8148 💯 Henry Tuder also killed almost every male York on trumped up charges. Even Richard’s bastard son was killed by Henry Tuder. Henry VIII even killed the Duke of Clarence daughter when she was an old woman. Whatever you say about the York’s they did not kill women. They had honor.
If she thought Henry V and co had killed her sons because they were potential rivals to the throne, then the safest place for her daughter would be as his wife. The only danger her daughter posed to Henry was to have sons with another man, because those future sons could be used as rivals to the throne. If they were married, Henry wouldn’t have to kill her or her future children, because they would be his own heirs. It would have been foolish to have her marry anyone else, and living on borrowed time for her not to marry at all (because Henry’d never know if she was planning to marry and whom she may be forming an alliance with. One rumor that she was going to marry a legitimate rival, and he could easily have her killed)
And why was her daughter writing love-letters to the King, her uncle? They either thought the Princes were still alive, or nothing mattered to them except getting to wear a crown , but I just can't that about Elizabeth of York. By all accounts she was a good person.
I'm influenced by "A daughter of time" by Josephine Tey, which was recommended to us by our history teacher fifty years ago. So I think Henry dunnit. But I also find the possibility that they died of sickness during the reign of Richard plausible. What is certain is that Shakespeare was writing during the reign of Henry's granddaughter - no way he's going to cast doubt on the legitimacy of grandpa's reign, whoever he privately believes is responsible for their deaths.
Particularly when she had her father's temper and the right to lop your head off if she wished. This is *not* the sort of person you say 'your grandfather was a usurper who had no right to the throne' to! (Sorry for the belated reply, I've only just found this video)
I haven't thought about that book for years, maybe decades! Thanks for reminding me about it.
He wouldn’t have hidden the bodies. Besides the boys were isolated. How would they get a sickness if they were isolated
This is a brilliant analysis of Richard III.
I always thought them dying of sickness seemed the most plausible. Richard was loyal to Edward until his death. He kept Warwick alive. Killing the princes when they'd already been disinherited/captured was unnecessary and damaging for Richard's reputation.
Why wouldn't the boy's mother Elizabeth Woodville, or their sister, Elizabeth Tudor, just say that then? King Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth (sister) had to fight people claiming to be the younger prince their whole reign.
I do believe Richard killed the princes but I'm open to being wrong. I think it would be neat if Perkin Warbeck turned out to really be the younger prince. To me, it's what King Richard III did leading up to their disappearances that has me siding more with him killing them. I will link a free documentary here on UA-cam that covers some of what I mean. If you like this channel then you should enjoy it.
What I don't get is why Richard is called out so much for this over other kings.. I'm guessing its because it was his own nephews and his brother had trusted him. That and he didn't have to take the crown but chose to. Otherwise, it was pretty standard that kings would execute people who had claims. King Henry VII and Elizabeth had Edward Plantagenet (Teddy) Earl of Warwick imprisoned from age 10 in the tower until they executed him at age 24. It is said they had him killed because Ferdinand II of Aragon & Isabella I of Castile demanded all claimants be taken care of before they would send Catherine of Aragon to marry Arthur. They wanted to make sure their daughter would be secure on the throne. - I get them being concerned too. For any king & Queen, if they lost their crowns, they knew it meant they would be killed as well as their kids.
ua-cam.com/video/uwzuHGMHx1I/v-deo.html
If they were still alive or believed to be, they would have been the vortex of all the malcontents who would rally around the "princes" in order to overthrow Richard III. If he personally didn't kill them, it was for his benefit
I think it’s possible they died of natural causes. Unfortunately I don’t think the current royal family will allow the bones of those two boys (presumed to be the princes) to be examined. If a cause of death could be determined it would be helpful in solving this mystery.
@@LaPetiteBoulin I've always thought that it was highly likely that Perkin Warbeck was not Richard of York, but was an illegitimate son of Edward lV. Edward did spend time in Flanders when he was in exile and before he returned to reclaim his throne. I am sure he had to do something to pass the time whilst he was abroad!
@@BrittleSun being in the medical field, if the boys were suffocated it would be visible via soft tissue not bones, unless strangled and damage done to the oropharynx, larynx and surrounding area.
I was a "Richard III is evil" person for many years until I read Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time," in which a kinder portrait of Richard the III was presented and his character was defended. Richard was a human being, possessing a strong character, and in my opinion now, was maligned by Shakespeare. According to Tey, Shakespeare took his source for Richard's evil nature from Sir Thomas More, a strong supporter of Henry Tudor, but it has been many years since I read this wonderful book, so I may be wrong in saying that about More. More had every reason to laud and praise Henry Tudor, so it would have been easier to destroy Richard III and blame him for his nephews deaths. However, while I am not a member of the Richard III fan club, I was thrilled to discover that his bones had been recovered and we now have a clear picture of what he looked like. I was also appalled at the wounds found on his bones; no way to treat a royal person in my opinion. But it was exciting to discover that the curved spine (the hump on the back) was indeed true. Still I believe Richard has gotten a rotten deal in history.
well sharon
the war of the roses, actually got its name in the 19th century, what most do not know is,,,
that everyone was related, it was a cousins war,...
edward III had many children, his first son the black prince* died, his son richard II not a yorkist or lancastrian..but plantagenet..was later deposed...
not the first or last king of england to be deposed...
the next in line or second child was isabella countess of bedford....she had two female children and at that time could not inherit...
the next a male: lionel of antwerp,duke of clarance- he had a daughter Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster....
her children were: elizabeth mortimer-the baroness camyoss- who had henry percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland not just very rich english magnate but a great grandson of edward III....
so during this time,.many people would ask, who is king or queen at this time. it changed often...
henry vi and edward IV were rivals and cousins, they both were deposed and restored twice as king.....
also henry tudor was not the only claimaint for the english throne, his maternal claim was from the house of beaufort* magaret beaufort was like 15 others a grand daughter of king edward III...
another claim during the time of henry IV, was not a desendant of edward III but henry III.... his great great grandson...hotspur...
Sir Henry Percy KG , commonly known as Hotspur, was a late-medieval English nobleman. He was a significant captain during the Anglo-Scottish wars.
He later led successive rebellions against Henry IV of England and was slain at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 at the height of his career., his plan was the tripatrite pact with Prince Owen Glendower: the prince of wales to divide england and being that he had a distant claim to the throne, was from the house of percy, in opposition to the house of lancaster...
also worth a mention, was during this time, kingdom of scotland, wales were in the avignon pacy, and england and irish kingdoms were part of the roman papacy...
the hundred years war with france, duchy of brittany-burgundy-holy roman empire all played a part in english-british history....
as you guessed english and british history is complicated and messy, everyone is related and until the 19th century it was not even called war of the roses....
I agree. Shakespeare and More. More wrote many inconsistencies in his book including the death of KEIV among others. E. Woodville committed treason and so did her brother, "Anthony Rivers who brought the boy up, along with Richard Grey, the younger brother of the Marquis of Dorset, and Thomas Vaughn, Edward V's Chamberlain. It was because on June 22 they heard a sermon about rather than seeing Edward V crowned London heard a sermon preached that EVIV and E Woodville were declared their marriage was bigamous so were all of the children of the union were illegitimate not capable of inheriting the throne. Those who had been summoned for the session of Parliament that had now been canceled hear the evidence and subsequently petitioned Richard III to take the crown as the only male heir legitimate of Richard, Duke of York." This is from Matthew Lewis's book "The Survival of the Princes in the Tower".
I read the book at 14 and since then, and the research I have done in the 40 years since, I feel he was ill done by history.
there's a fascinating documentary, which really made me think through some other options... I think it was ALL buckingham and of course Margaret bringing henry back...Love your videos
Thank you, I'm so pleased you like the videos. I think I saw that documentary too - if it was the one where they cast a spectacularly sneaky looking actor to play Buckingham? It raised some very interesting points for me too.
I've always thought that, too.
There was a Fictional one about Perkin Warbeck where they laid the blame firmly on Margaret and suggested that Perkin was who he said he was. Mostly hokum, but it did raise an awful lot of questions as to why many of the other Royal houses of Europe, and exiled members of the Yorkist family were so keen to recognise him. The obvious answer is they wanted to unseat Henry and destabilise England, but I think it was more than that. I think the idea that he was really the son of a Dutch boatman is even harder to swallow than the idea that he really was Richard. 'The Perfect Prince' is a non fiction book that the drama used and it really does raise serious issues.
Would you mind sharing the name of that documentary? Would love to watch....I have long been fascinated by this topic and always find myself suspecting Buckingham more than anyone else!
Very happy you popped up on my UA-cam! Love everything about this! You have a very nice voice to listen to, your topics are fascinating and the comments are so informed and “fact based”, depending on what facts you adhere to. This is just lovely. Thank you for taking the time to do this for us. Your hard work is appreciated
The known and agreed upon facts: The boys safety was in trusted to Richard. He was to see to Edward's coronation. He collected both boys in one location under lock and key again, under his protection. The boys disappear. He never produces their bodies or investigates their fate. He eliminates all the boys supporters. He is declared King. He has motive and opportunity to eliminate his nephews. You don't need a CSI team to Crack this one. Shakespeare? Who cares, it's a play. I'm sure the Tudor court (Elizabeth) ? Commissioned this and other plays as propaganda but that doesn't negate the known facts, just made it easier to understand albeit melodramatically. Sorry Richard apologists but there it is.
I'd like to suggest a video about Margaret Beaufort. She appears to have one single ambition for the whole of her life, seeing her son on the throne.Although a pious lady I think she would have few qualms about eliminating any possible obstacles to that ambition.
If she had eliminated the boys then why did Richard not show the bodies or make any moves to have her charged for killing children. Richard would have used the murder of those children as a reason why the Tudors were barred from taking the throne
Bull. She only wanted him to have his title and lands returned and he be able to return. Why would she have a hand in that? Prince Edward would have respected what his dad had agreed to and she knew that. Henry was chosen not because he was someone of note but because most if not all of the older nobles on each side were dead. I wouldn't think Margaret would have wanted him to be King, but if he was going to fight Richard it was for a reason which Elizabeth Woodville would have agreed and Henry love Elizabeth, his wife dearly and would never hurt her in any way.
However, I do not believe some of the things that History had said about him.
Margaret Tudor was married to a Stanley, who was the Constable of the Tower ,so she easily had access to the boys. It was the Stanleys who betrayed Richard at the Battle of Bosworth and thereby allowed Henry Tudor to win.
Margaret Tudor doesn't strike me as a psychopath though. Richard had already had one of Elizabeth Woodvilles young sons from her first marriage decapitated. The boys went missing while under his care, so responsibility ultimately lands on him.
My thoughts exactly.
Margret Beaufort *
Her husband became constable of the tower in the autumn of 1483 when the princes were believed to be dead by everyone bc they hadn’t been seen since early July
Richard III had by far the strongest motive for killing Edward V after Edward IV's death and his actions in rapidly securing possession of the two boys and immediately postponing the coronation strongly suggests that his motives were questionable. So he got a priest to question the legitimacy of his elder brother's marriage and therefore the legitimacy of his children by his wife the queen. What a coincidence this all came up just after Edward IV's death🤔 And if Richard III was trying to lessen suspicion of his custody of his nephews he certainly didn't do himself any favours by going off on a progress across the North and leaving them behind in the Tower with some of his henchmen. At the time they seemed to have disappeared.
And this swell family guy sure had a strange way of showing his family love and affection and loyalty. Not only did his nephews disappear while he was away but he also put forward the claim that his brother Edward was not just in a bigamous marriage, he himself was a bastard because their mother conceived Edward at a time when her husband was away on a campaign over a period of time when he would have needed to be there in order to conceive Edward with his wife. So according to this loving brother and son his brother was a bastard and his mother an adulteress, his father was a cuckold and his nieces and nephews a bunch of bastards. Gee what a paragon of family values.
But on the subject of his two nephews who had apparently disappeared while in his custody he was the soul of discretion, hmm.
So now if Margaret Beaufort or her husband, or some other person with access to the princes had killed Edward V and his brother prince Richard while Richard III was away wouldn't he have ordered an investigation to discover what had happened to them, knowing himself innocent of any action that led to their disappearance and or death? Doing so would have served to lessen suspicion of the person with the clearest motive for their disappearance. Instead he kept shtum in the midst of exceedingly suspicious circumstances. And made an obvious play for his eldest niece Elizabeth (the person with the best claim to her father and brother's crown if they were dead, and the shadow of illegitimacy were removed from her at a suitable time) after his wife and son had died.
That Richard didn't move against his other brother's son the Earl of Warwick, seems one of the more reasonable things he did (or rather didn't do) at this time. Before his death, Edward IV had already passed a bill of attainder against that brother's lands and titles for treason (with Richard III's help) and imprisoned that brother's children, both Prince George's son and daughter, who remained incarcerated. So they weren't really any material threat to him at that point. Meanwhile he had been attracting lots of dubious attention, bastardising his eldest brother THE KING and that brother's children, and thereby increasing opposition to his position. Why borrow yet more trouble at that already fraught time?
Conversely if Margaret was related to the Constable of the Tower ,perhaps she found out what happened at the Tower and that is why the Stanleys changed sides at the crucial moment when they could be sure of not facing the wrath of a child murderer ( albeit perhaps by proxy).
I believe it was Lady Margaret Beaufort, desperate to bring her son to the thrown and married to Elisabeth York. She needed Elisabeth's brothers dead but legitimate.
Such a well made presentation, as always!
Agree with you
13:16 I am enjoying your video essay very much, but must point out a subtle difference here. In this and in the previous play of the history cycle (HENRY VI Part 3) Richard sees himself betrayed by nature, cut off from all possibility of Love. He does not choose 'hate' but rather 'power' as a substitute. Part of the power of the play (and one reason of all the many Elizabethan plays about Richard III this is the one we still perform) is how Richard avoids getting his own hands dirty, keeps insisting he feels no pity, yet after a horrific dream seems to almost weep in guilt, admitting he "can find no pity in myself for myself." Granted this is about performance and literary analysis, but then that is my field! And of course--here is the powerful irony--Richard is wrong. He wins the love of Lady Anne, but cannot bring himself to accept it. This is part of the profound psychological insights of the play. Which has little enough to do with history, though.
23:34 Re: Edward, Earl of Warwick. One can always make the argument he was on the list to be killed, but whoever killed his cousins figured he was less of a practical threat at the moment. Events in effect therefore spared him. For a time.
30:20 Here I think is one of the things upon which so much of history may hinge, but we often lack enough information to make a judgment. Personality. We don't know very much about Elizabeth Woodville, about how cunning or fearful or ruthless or emotional a person she was. We have hints, little more. Ditto Richard, Buckingham, etc. We know quite a bit about Henry VII, given we have a whole reign's worth of letters and diary accounts, etc. But Richard? Or his sister-in-law? Much less so. We must offer interpretation.
30:50 William Shakespeare was not an historian nor did he pretend he was. He was an actor, poet, playwright, and businessman who wrote a superior play about one of the most popular 'villains' in the theatre of his time. Blaming him seems to me unreasonable.
I will point out there's another suspect everyone seems to ignore. Anne Neville, Richard's wife and queen. She had every bit as much motive as Richard, and at least in theory had the power to get it done. We don't really know that much about her, but we do know that when Edward IV died she never bothered ordering the ceremonial robes she should have worn at Edward V's coronation as Duchess of Gloucester. So...did she know something? Maybe. That is all we can say. I myself think she's a far-too-often ignored figure in history, the daughter of the Kingmaker who at least on the surface seems to demonstrate some of her father's skills, at least in terms of outcomes. Maybe.
'The one who loves least, has the most power.' Very good point. It's not necessarily hatred motivating RIII, but ambition which is far more realistic.
Thanks for discussing Anne Neville. That's very interesting that "she never bothered ordering ceremonial robes" for the coronation. Maybe you could say a little more about how we know this. It's weight as evidence is unclear to me, but if it can reasonably be concluded that she did not order new robes, it is a very damning piece of information. Because if she knew they would not be needed, it is likely she knew there would be no coronation. Interesting. Hadn't heard about this before.
Aside from the most likely murderer of the Princes, the figure of Margaret Beaufort always comes to my mind as a very likely suspect. If anyone outside Richard's control could have gotten someone into the Tower to murder the Princes, it was she. She was monstrously rich. She knew everybody. She was highly intelligent & a political player all her life. I think she would have seen the Princes' existence as both inconvenient to her decades-long struggle to put her only child on the throne of England, but also as a way to implicate Richard in their deaths. Margaret would have relished the challenge.
Finally, it still blows my mind that Richard III's remains were found & securely identified after >500 years. The Richard III Society's persistent advocacy made that happen and for their efforts we can all be grateful. It is an amazing story. At some point, I saw a documentary about this here on UA-cam featuring a young man with near-identical scoliosis (who amazingly enough was a Bosworth re-enactor.) It showed that Richard's "hunchback" designation was a gross exaggeration; "hunchback" is not the same physical condition as scoliosis. One shoulder was probably only slightly raised & was probably barely noticable under his clothes. He likely had no trouble riding on horseback, wielding a sword, etc., although he was small of stature (maybe 5'6" if memory serves.) Highly recommended.
Edit: that video is
Richard III The New Evidence
ua-cam.com/video/fDHDvnnK4nI/v-deo.html
@@GildaLee27 But the RIII society had for years claimed the hunchback thing was pure invention. The excavation proved this to be fantasy and anyone who saw that skeleton as it was first uncovered remembers the significance of that severe curvature of the spine.
No one other than the Ricardians ever suggested he could not have ridden or fought with the disability he had ,in fact it was their prime reason for discounting it.
The whole thing was wishful thinking with the usual bogus speculation of reconfigured portraits,Tudor propaganda etc. and all for what?
This was one of my initial thoughts too, but after learning more, I think Margaret did it.
@@billycaspersghost7528 But the video about with the young chap with similar curvature of the spine as Richard is proven to have you can't see it until he's topless. The only really obvious sign is one shoulder higher than the other, there are problems with some shortness of breath but with adapted armour then it could be concealed - in those days people lived in much more of a crowd then we did so possibly more people knew about it than we'd suspect these days but the deformed, doubled over caracture we see especially in the Lawrence Oliver film is just that. Richard would have been able to fight and ride relatively normally although perhaps in a more superstitious age he would have been more judged by his appearance then we would do.
@@EmoBearRights Pretty sure people would have known ,but what`s the difference?
Richard was responsible for usurping the throne and having the two boys killed , all the attempts to prove otherwise are fantasy.
I think Richard III is responsible for their deaths regardless of whether or not he murdered them. They were in The Lord Protector's care.
He let them die either way.
I love all your theories on this topic. Especially mentioning the young Earl of Warwick in a few different scenarios. Thanks for this video. anything is possible in history and with these characters. Seems like there is not enough evidence against Richard III. Too many other suspects with equal nefarious motives
I agree.
The Earl of Warwick was not the spawn of The Woodvilles. That is the difference. The Woodvilles wanted more control, the establishment did not want this. Both Princes in the Towers were under heavy influence of their uncle Anthony Woodville whom both looked up too. Richard III hardly knew either of his nephews and the elder apparently didn't react nicely to him being Lord Protector. The relationship between Edward V was already established with his uncle Anthony, not to mention Edward would have full power in just a few short years. The Woodvilles were despised too much. The Earl of Warwick was a little orphan who didn't have any rival relatives influencing him.
With Shakespeare it's the same argument today with film/ media. Does it make culture or just reflect what's already out there. Per Richard, Shakespeare just takes all the rumors and makes it more interesting.
With Richard, I think it's important to reflect on his treatment of other claimants. The boys are not an immediate threat and he doesn't kill George's son (and daughter)--who literally would be next in line. He doesn't show the boys because he doesn't have them. Perhaps he really had lost control.
I'm curious. Do we know the relationship between Elizathe Woodville and Buckingham? Did she ever make any statements about him?
I have nothing but a hunch on this, but Henry seems awfully sure they are dead and he seems to be the one going around killing claimants--as does Henry VIII.
I always wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville had a plan against Richard and Beaufort played Elizbeth. By the time Elizbeth realized that Beaufort was the enemy it was too late and her boys were missing .
@@annwatson4276 a sound theory, it has been explored by Phillipla Gregory in her books and while those are fiction, I thought it made a lot of sense. I mean Margaret was clearly in touch with Woodville, she was the MOTHER of the Lancastrian heir.. and in close circle to the new queen Anne Nevillr since she held her train at the coronation. Also, her husband was high up on Richard's council. They clearly knew and potentially manipulated a lot of the game.
I remember watching a program about Richard III before heading off to battle Henry. The historian; sorry I do not remember the name; had found an accounting record indicating the payment of wages to a tutor for the boys and for their expenses for the next quarter. The theory of this historian was" If you are going to kill someone, why pay for their expenses and education?" I tend to agree. Another point this historian had was that after the battle Henry "high-tailed it" back to London and the Tower. It was a possibility that Henry was interested in taking care of the "boys problem" as he did not even wait around to bury his own soldiers. It is food for thought. I apologize for not remembering the name of the program or the historian. Thank you for your posting.
Could be hush money. It wouldn’t be the first time a payment for one thing is masked as payment for another service (staying quiet) all together.
It was pretty much accepted at the time the young prince's were dead. Everyone started plotting as such including their mother E.W., and if anyone had thought they may have been alive, the plotting would have been VERY different.
Whether or not Richard III actually ordered or "found out" the two Prince's were dead, he was responsible. He was the person that ordered them into the Tower, he was the person that had them proclaimed bastard's, and he was the person that crowned himself King.
**It makes no sense that the Prince's managed to stay alive until Henry VII made it to be crowned, and he or his mother killed them. Mainly because the moment that Richard III died, if the Prince's were alive E.W. and their sister Elizabeth of York would have immediately moved to have them rescued. And extremely unlikely that E.W. and Elizabeth of York would have married the Prince's murderer..** And putting aside modern day novelist, it was well documented that Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had deep feelings for each other considering the other relationships of monarchs at that time. Elizabeth was never recorded as an idiot, and surely to care for the murderer of your two brothers, something would be wrong with you.
Finally:
In the 1587 the chronicles give a complete description of where the boys remains where interred at the foot of the stairs
In 1674 remains of two young boys were found in the exact way that had been described 96 years before,
I am sure it would never be done, but wouldn't it be great to have those remains DNA'd?
I could be wrong, but I believe I either listened to a Historic Royal Palace's talk or watched a documentary specifically about the many many skeletons that have been found at the tower and the ultimate conclusion was that the skeletons of the two boys that were found were NOT the princes. Other skeletons they investigated ended up being adults and once a gorilla.
@@redpotter27 I know not of what you wrote, but do not doubt your information.
I speak of the find in 1647 during renovations at the Tower. Human remains were found under a staircase in a wooden box. It was believed at the time that the bodies of the Princes. An examination of the bones in 1933 concluded that they did belonged to two young boys. These bones were taken out and well documented to be the complete skeletons of two young boys the approximate age as the Princes. The royal family was sure enough to have them buried as the Royal Princes.
The only way to know for sure would to be DNA testing, and the royals to do not do that easily. I mean DNA testing showed that Richard himself had a DNA break in his fathers line.
The only thing known for positive is that Richard had the boys placed in the tower under his protection. So either Richard had them killed, or he was to weak to keep them safe under his protection. I do not see Richard as being week. I also do not see him as evil, historically it was a royal-eat-royal time and many royals were "taken out" by rivals, children or not.
Richard did not crown himself.
@@lindasmallwood7242 Okay?
@@lindasmallwood7242 But he was crowned King. Was there anyone else who would have benefited from the deaths of those boys?
I had never considered the boys dying from The Sweat. Personally, I had always thought it was Margaret Beaufort who was responsible for their deaths. She would have done anything to get her son on the throne because she wanted to be like a queen. I think she was driven by vanity, especially since she came up with a new title and multiple reports have stated that she acted like she ruled the country side-by-side with Henry
If they did die from the Sweat, then why were the bodies not shown to the public?
They couldn't have died from it, because the illness was introduced to England through Henry Tudor's soldiers, who were mainly prisoners in Europe prior to invading England. So if the boys died/disappeared in 1483, and Bosworth happened in 1485, it doesn't fit.
@@sandranorman5469 exactly. If they died of natural causes then surely it would have been made public to preserve Richards reputation as even then killing kids was bad. The were quietly bumped off and they were never mentioned again in the hope people wouldn’t ask questions and forget about them.
My problem with this is that he had his nephews declared bastards so they could never take the throne. That tells us what his intentions were. I realize Margaret would have killed to get her son on the throne, but my guess is that she promoted the idea of Richard taking the throne because she knew he’d lose it quickly. And he did.
@@lar.8168 No record that I can find of sweating sickness in England befor said date.
Holllingshead wrote nothing but hearsay. Previously to becoming king, Richard had acted as regent and he was honorable when doing so. Also his deformity was one DNA showed would come upon him in late adolescence. Also: money was being spent supporting the nephews and all others related to them for many years thereafter - until they 'disappeared' during Henry Tudor's reign. Disease was rampant and hygiene unknown. Youngsters were particularly vulnerable when incarcerated. Based upon everything now available, I believe Richard is NOT guilty but Shakespeare himself does not share liability due to duress - the Tudors being who they were. I remain convinced that Henry Tudor (Ed 7th) was the true murderer.
Whilst that is my instinct we have to be fair here, and there is no evidence he knew what was going on either. If he knew they were dead, why didn't he say so and produce the corpses? Just like Richard could have done before him? Instead he was plagued by pretenders. It would have been so simple just to produce a corpse, blame Richard and put an end to it. But he didn't. Why?
It was documented that money was being spent supporting the young princes and their household for many years? Well! I did not know that! Do tell?
Money can be funneled into anyone’s pockets for plausible deniability, but that was a new piece of info for me. If the boys died of natural causes, the corpses could still imply negligence, like starvation; or it could be alleged they were suffocated. Richard may have had a no-win situation. The bodies could have decomposed a lot while he was away or while he was deciding.
I much as admire Shakespeare, I think he was a Tudor Toady.
Tardisgirl Who My thoughts exactly. It didn’t pay to be too edgy in 1597, especially after the performance of Richard II in 1595 with its regicidal theme. Richard III was great PR for the House of Tudor.
Much like today with trump, you want to keep your job or be In Favour, your nose must be brown
Of course he was! In those days if you wanted to get ahead (or even survive) you had to keep in the good books of those in power.
And didn't have much choice about.
Thomas More was as much a Tudor toady and also a very unreliable source for the history of Richard III. besides after reading Hilary Mantel's Cromwell trilogy I started dounting he himself was such a noble man as portrayed in "The Tudors" Not that those works are to be taken face valueas factial history, but they are an inspiration to find out what the real picture might have been.
Thank you Dr Kat. You pose some very interesting theories. I have always considered Richard to be much maligned. Shakespeare was no fool. He lived well writing for the Tudor court. Of course he would be creative in posing the Tudors as heroes and their rivals as villains. You didn’t mess with that family. Today he would be earning a good living doing the same thing for the Windsors, by writing for the tabloids.
Thank you, all the players are laid out for examination perfectly. What a den of vipers.
I think Henry Tudor - And his steely mother - could well have been involved. Richard’s unfortunate physical appearance and being a convenient fall guy after his death adds up to a miscast historical villain
The whole Margaret Beaufort theory (really invented by Phillipa Gregory ) has been debunked many times
I could work this out as a possible theory without referring to Philippa Gregory
Henry wasn’t in the country and had no power. His mother had no access to the boys either
How do you know Henry was out of the country as we don’t know specifically when they died - and if his mother wanted access I’m sure she would have got it !
I found that the article about Richard 111's portrait being altered at sometime in the distant past was very telling! Makes a person go hmmm! Thank you for another thought provoking talk on Tudor history. Blessings on you and your family and friends and any livestock you might have!
I read Daughter of Time as a youngster, so have always seen Shakespeare's Richard III as Tudor propaganda. It was joyous when the real Richard III was discovered under the car park, and he has been given a more fitting final resting place in Leicester Cathedral. I don't know what happened to the princes in the tower. However, other genealogical information seems to prove Edward IV really was illegitimate, so Richard III, who apparently looked quite like the father, had the better claim. I myself have distant Plantagenet roots, so I would like to think the best of them.
That DNA analysis suggests many things. The fact that Richard’s Y chromosome DNA did not match the purported paternal line descendants indicates a false paternity event happened but not where. It certainly has no bearing on Edward’s legitimacy. It does suggest Richard was illegitimate though. The only way to prove legitimacy in this case would be to test the remains of Edward III, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, and Edward IV. Considering all four are royal remains, this is unlikely.
“Daughter of Time” makes the point that Henry VII repealed Titulus Regius, which restored Elizabeth of York & the two Princes to the line of succession. Doing so immediately made the elder Prince the king of England. Henry VII had the most to gain from their deaths.
Came across this channel while browsing you tube and im hooked, never knew english history was so interesting. Wish these kind of channels were around when i was at school
I love your happy ending theory, and it does make sense. The boys could well have lived out their lives in some place far from court. One look.at those portraits of that implacable pair of power-mongers, Margaret Beaufort and her shifty son, reveals why. Shakespeare was writing for the descendent of Henry Tudor. Of course he made Richard III as vile as they said. He would have to be a monster to make those two look human. But it's equally likely that they had the boys killed. Of course they could have, and sadly, probably did.
I, too, would love to think the boys lived out their lives in anonymity. But, then, whose were the bones found in the tower? I believe I recall that animal bones were amongst them, but there were bones of human children.
Richard was one of the most amicable characters in Philippa Gregory's rendition and the TV series based on it. I'd be interested to know which shows do you rate as the most / least accurate among Wolf Hall, Tudors, White Queen, etc.
Phillip's Gregory's book was fiction. I've heard historians say that the idea that Margaret Beaufort was involved had never been raised until her book.
I am a believer that Richard lll has been maligned throughout history. I like your thought that Richard sent the princes into anonymity but not death.
Ever since reading Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time" I've always thought that "it wos Buckingham wot dun it", and the reason for his hasty dispatch, the cause for Richard's fury, and why Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary.
I think Buckingham was playing a double edged game; he had his own claim to the throne, which in terms of lineage was somewhat more robust than Henry Tudor. I think he was clearing the way, believing that his claim would out-trump ( as in cards) that of the Tudor claim, should it come to that.
However at the time I think the removal of the princes, while Richard was on royal progress in the Midlands I think, was done with Henry's knowledge, and may even have been one of the reasons why Henry's relationship with Elizabeth Woodville was less than amicable once Henry Tudor has ascended the throne.
You know E. Woodville's son sent money to Warick and committed treason. When he was imprisoned he still made Richard Exector ( I think that's what it was called) of his will. Shows he still had trust to be honest about it. Says a lot about Richard as a person.
@@l.plantagenet : ( I think the word is "executor", and I'm not sure I knew that ); additionally when news of Richard's death reached York, which had been the seat of the Council of the North, of which Richard had been Lord President, during his brother Edward IV's reign,, the ciity made a point of recording their grief at his passing, presumably at the risk of offending the new king, Henry VII. I think that says a lot about Richard as a person too.
@@l.plantagenet it might be because i'm not a native speaker but can you explain what the executor part means?
@@minminbtscookie9542 Sorry not to have seen your comment earlier; an executor of a will is the person responsible for ensuring that the bequests of the will are enacted and observed (cousin Mary gets the silver teapot, and the grandchildren get their school fees met and that sort of thing).
Only found your channel yesterday, and I am already addicted. I am so interested in this period of time. I don't have any fully formed opinions on what went down with Richard III and the two princes. Tbqh I find plausibility in all of the theories. We'll never know for sure. History is written by the victors, and nothing is written without bias. We can draw our own conclusions as to what happened, but we'll never know for sure. But that doesn't make it any less interesting to learn about. Looking forward to diving deep into your archive on other historical figures! Thanks :)
Thank you for this fascinating and informative article. I have been on the fence about Richard III since reading "The Daughter of Time." Tey makes a very interesting case, and while it is certainly true that "good" people can do monstrous deeds, it also makes sense to consider a suspect's past when ascertaining whether he displayed the sort of personality that was capable of doing them. Richard turns out to be somewhat of an enigma, since his character before Edward's death seemed so exemplary. However, when forming an opinion on the issue, I also have to examine my own tendency to distrust accepted conclusions. If Richard's villainy hadn't been so thoroughly beaten into us by what is clearly overblown Tudor propaganda, what would I think about the actual case? I probably would think he had done it. It seems like the simplest and most practical conclusion. However, I still don't believe that his guilt has been established beyond a doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt? Not certain.
It always seemed to me that Richard was a good, loyal brother who was trusted by Edward (not something you could accuse George of being for instance) and seemed content to be left living his best life in the north where he was loved and respected by the people he governed over. In ruling even his detractors had to admit that he passed good laws for the benefit of the common man. He seemed to have loved his wife, a childhood sweetheart, having waited for her and given up control of a considerable amount of her land holdings to his brother in order to marry her. They made her childhood home, the place they first met, their marital home. He was deeply religious. Over all it seems out of keeping that he would murder the two young boys that his brother put into his care. That they were dead is likely since it would have quieted rumors simply to show them but I don't think he killed or had them killed. Morals aside. logically of all the suspects he had the most to lose at their disappearance. The last two years of his life while he was king, when he lost his child and then his wife and was surrounded by plots and rumors, were probably the worst two years of his life. They seem like an outlier to me.
And yet, he was the guardian of the child king. And there were no coronation clothes ordered for the child's coronation. Someone knew something.
I read The White Queen (yes, yes, I know) and to be honest, the conspiration to
destabilize Richard's reign makes sense. Both in literature and from historical recounts Richard is smart. Very smart. He must have known that if the kids died, HE would be painted as the culprit. He obviously couldn't walk them around because whatever happened, he lost them under his own care, but I don't think he killed them. Guilty because he didn't care good enough of them, but not the actual murder.
Exactly. He knew how it would look regardless of facts. It just sucks he was dealing with war and didn't have the time to breathe really after the loss of his son, then wife, then the boys, then Tudor comes. It also is NOT coincidence Margaret told Henry to come the day the boys "died".
I have never believed he murdered them, the Lady who spearheaded the search for his body has my respect, she was going to find his remains and have them properly laid to rest as a King, she did an amazing job
Just watched a movie about this "The Lost King" starring Sally Hawkins at Phillipa Langley. It was a wonderful movie. She didn't want Richard III to be solely defined by disability. I'm glad his remains were found, properly identified, and he was given a decent burial.
I don’t believe Richard would have risked the boys being set free only to come back to claim their rights later on. No chance :)
Great video! Very balanced presentation and I like how you bring up many possibilities. Although Shakespeare exaggerated Richard's villainy (He wasn't responsible for his brother George's death or his wife Anne's death) I think he most likely did order the deaths of his nephews. Alison Weir makes an excellent case in her book The Princes in the Tower. I also think the bones discovered at the foot of the staircase in 1674 are indeed the remains of the princes. Thomas More had accurately described where they were buried, writing in 1514. He was acquainted with four ladies who were all in a position to know details, one of whom was Elizabeth Brackenbury, daughter of Sir Robert Brackenbury, Constable of the Tower at the time of the princes' disappearance. The others were Mary Tyrell, Anne Montgomery, and Elizabeth Mowbray, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk. They all lived in a convent opposite the Tower of London.
Food for thought. I never considered that the princes might have died from illness. Thank you, Dr. Kat.
Dr Kat, have you read "Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey? It was written in 1951! This was a time when historical literature was not especially popular. It's a great story, partially written as a sort of medieval noir, framed in the modern era. Starting with the basic question "Who stands to profit MOST" it follows and tests out your suggestion that Richard III was innocent of the murders, including documentation I have no access to read for myself. I highly recommend it as both an intriguing mystery and a ripping good read. Given its age, it may also be the source that gave rise to the idea that Richard never killed the princes. I credit it with sparking my fascination with history in general and with this period in particular.
I do enjoy your talks and am so glad I found you.
Not only that, but by now it's public domain and can be downloaded for free!
@DannyJane I haven't but thank you for the tip. I will check it out!
@@renshiwu305 Brilliant assessment and things I have wondered about myself. Add in possible information that Edward IV was illegitimate. (Documents have been found in France to maybe corroborate this) Richard may have felt he had no choice but to seize the throne, as the Only legitimate adult Yorkist left. Maybe when they are declared illegitimate, it is not because They are, but their father was! IF they Were killed, my prime suspect would be Buckingham, acting on instructions from Margaret or Henry Tudor. Why does Richard have him summarily executed, when he was 'apparently' loyal to him? Access is not an issue, because it would not have been necessary for any of them to have done it in person, you just bribe people. All of them held enough influence to have been able to do that. Who did their deaths benefit most? Tudor and the Woodville faction? Not saying Elizabeth consented or conspired in the deaths of her own sons, but she was quick enough to align herself with the Tudor side. It seems that the Woodvilles and Richard had long been at odds. He saw them as usurpers and manipulators that had wormed their way into his brothers affections and they knew he was a threat.
How does Thomas Moore, that Tudor Spin Doctor, until his own obsessions got the better of him, know where the bodies are? How does he know what happened so well?
IF the children were killed by Tudor and his cohorts Before the death of Richard that would explain his silence and his inability to produce them. It could have been part of a greater picture, to undermine him. Where did the rumours that they were dead start? And by whom? I am thinking modern media manipulation here. misinformation, Fake News etc. It happened then, it just took longer to circulate
@@BethDiane So happy to find another person who appreciates this extraordinary story.
@@hogwashmcturnip8930 they were declared illegitimate because of the precontract between Edward IV and Elanor Butler of marriage before he married Elizabeth Woodville. Forgive me if you brought that out and I missed it. Do you know about Bishop Stillington and his involvement in this investigation? You probably do, but if you don't it tells you a lot more about the illegitimate claims.
I just found your channel yesterday and have been binge watching! Love your style, and appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Thank you and i will continue to binge!
Wow! Great discussion - lots to think about. I appreciate learning about alternate theories!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I think the same way about using the Categories,” Good or Bad”. Similarly, judging Historical Decisions as “Good or Bad”. Their is a tendency of people, to state, opinion as Truth. This is done regularly in conversations, manipulating emotions, instead of presenting an opposite opinion. Are there any easy “methods” to change what I call, “Combative conversations”?
Brilliant
This was fascinating, I so much enjoy your videos!
Thank you so much!
Shakespeare worked under the Tudor Queen, Elizabeth I, of course the man her Grandfather, Henry the seventh , who fought against Richard III, Richard is the bad guy. In fact it was Henry Tudor who was the bad guy if you think about it. There were too many people who had means to do away with the boys and who would benefit more than Richard. First, his wife, Anne Neville, she hated the Princes' parents, their father the King killed her father and her first husband. Though I don't believe she loved him at all. Then there is Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother. Who wanted her son on the throne and would have done anything to put him there. There is also her husband Lord Thomas Stanley, being married to Henry Tudor's mother and helping to put Henry on the throne would be good for himself as well. Then there is the doctor who attended the young King, who stated that the boy suffered from some ailment that was causing him to loose his teeth. And being ill he could have caught an infection which caused his death. Both boys could have become ill and died from lack of proper care. Don't forget it was the Parliament who declared them to be bastards. They probably remembered the last time a boy King ruled.....Richard the Second, and look at his reign. So they did not want another child to sit on the throne. Also, their father was believed not to be a Yorkist at all. But the love child of his mother's lover. The father was in France when he was conceived. Another fact, Edward had been betrothed to another when he married Elizabeth Woodville, which was as good as being married already. Also their mother had a lot of enemies as well. No, there are too many others who had reason to kill the Princes' and child mortality in those days was low. No, you can not convince me that Richard had them killed so he could sit on the throne.
What a great comment! You have pushed me back to being, once again, on the side of good King Richard. Wasn't it Richard III who came up with the idea of bail? Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
@@jeanhartely Once again, as author Josephine Tey pointed out in "Daughter of Time", FOLLOW THE ONE WITH THE MOST TO GAIN.
@@DannyJane. Yup, and who was that? Henry Tudor, with the help of his mum and the Woodvilles.
Even more recently, Henry VI, who was crowned as an infant and was never capable of ruling.
I only just watched this, coming late to the party.
I found your analysis very interesting.
Shakespeare of course, was writing for a Tudor audience ( Elizabeth I ) so he was never going to be sympathetic to Richard III.
I always wonder why Henry VII didn't make more of the disappearance\murder of the princes. He claimed the throne by conquest, then made Elizabeth of York legitimate again before he married her. It would have suited him to be able to prove the death of the boys and that Richard III was responsible. The Tower of London was a royal palace and stronghold, there must have been hundreds of people living or working there. If the princes had died, you would have thought that at least one person would have come forward to curry favour with the new King by giving information about strange goings on and bodies being buried in the dead of night.
Of course we will never know.
And by legitimating Elizabeth of York, he also legitimated her brothers, both of whom would have had a pre-emptive claim to the throne over Henry. My money's on Margaret Beaufort.
How about the fact that Henry VII was married to their sister and she told him Perkin was not her brother.
I'm Aussie and proudly belong to the Richard iii Society. (the only "fan" club I have ever joined) Richard was a loyal brother and valiant soldier for the king unlike the middle brother George Duke of Clarence who was killed for treason against his brother. Queen Elizabeth Woodville had a very large family and made sure they were all well appointed at court. It was their intention rule the country through their nephew. It came to light that Edward iv had a bigamous marriage therefore all his children were illegitimate, I feel Margaret Beaufort was behind it, she has been scheming to get her son on the throne from the moment he was born. Actually the only way the inadequate Henry vii won Bosworth was because his mothers husband Richard Stanley turned coat on Richard who was in the fray whilst Henry was looking on from a good vantage point. Richard almost killed
Henry but Henry's henchman saved his miserable skin. I object to the fallacy about Richard having all those abnormalities at birth. To my mind the Tudors were nothing to write home about, Elizabeth can pass with a push
Found you channel by accident, love your video's thank you xx ps would love to see one on Catherine Howard xx
A very interesting video. I tend to believe that Richard had the princes in the tower murdered. He benefited most from the death of the boys. I find it hard to believe that anyone would have been able to access and murder the boys without Richard’s knowledge and approval. If the boys were alive why not present them? If the boys died of sweating sickness why not be honest about it? I do acknowledge that presenting the boys as struck down by illness could have acted as a lightening rod for anti Richard factions but that possibility could have been managed. As to the younger boy who was not murdered I suggest that the princes in the tower were an easy target and anyone in the tower who knew of the circumstances could easily be forced into silence. I’m assuming the surviving boy was not so cloistered and his murder would have been met with outrage. I think that Shakespeare takes some artistic liberties but the core of his portrait is accurate.
Loved it, still think it was Richard either by design or negligence.
I think Richard took the crown because otherwise his position and probably his life was in danger from the Woodvilles. I think he ordered the death of the princes not out of malice but a necessity as previous usurpers (Henry IV & Edward IV) had ordered the deaths of their predecessors. Richard probably regretted doing it as he then couldn't produce them. It is possible of course they died of plague but then why not produce the bodies? Shakespeare is responsible for our perception of Richard as the arch-villain but he didn't make it all up as he got his information from the likes of Thomas More who certainly intentionally blackened Richard's name. I like Richard and you just feel the last few years of his life play out as a Euripidean tragedy.
Thank you, great points. I agree, if they died of disease, why not just say that and show the bodies?
@@ReadingthePast Well, for a start, if they were disease ridden, would you want to do that? As we are living through a plague right now, are people really keen on producing bodies for inspection? On the other hand would him just saying 'Oh, the sickness got 'em!' have solved anything? We know from modern times how things can be distorted, used against people, used For people... I honestly think neither Richard or Henry could produce the children, either living or dead, because they simply did not know! We know there was apparently one attempt to snatch the boys, what if there was another one that was more successful? It is a different take on it For instance if Henry had proof they were dead, why did he not produce it? Instead of relying on the smear tactics of his media of the day? Why were so many others willing to accept Perkin Warbeck? And why was Henry so unsettled by him? He seems convinced that he was a fake - why? Bravado? Or did he know why? And how come More seemed to know so much about it? There is a lot of questions about why Richard did not satisfactorily answer the question of the missing children, but no one ever asks why Henry didn't either. After all he was the one plagued with Pretenders. It was in His interest to nip the thing in the bud. But he could only do that if he had conclusive proof and he or his faction were not implicated. Instead we got a smear campaign.
Also, there has evidence come to light that it was actually Edward IV who was illegitimate. There are documents in some church in France that seem to prove it. That would throw a whole new light on why Richard did what he did. If he was presented with this stuff he would realise that he was the only legitimate and credible heir (given that we assume Warwick was incapable) Everything about Richard until this point would suggest that he was an immensely loyal brother, and he hated the Woodvilles. If Edward was illegitimate, he had no claim on the throne in the first place, neither did his children. If this information was brought to Richard but Richard whose motto was 'Loyalty binds me' cannot bring himself to declare his brother a bastard, with all that entails he goes for the hated Woodvilles instead. Because he knows they will assume power in the name of the boy. Thus opening up the whole can of worms. It's another theory
Regardless of what you may think of Richard III, the Tudors had no legitimate claim. Completely fabricated.
Doctor Kat, you speak so clearly on this. Thankyou. I'll be playing Richard the Third with Streamed Shakespeare in 16-18 Oct live online. If I can't change the words, I can at least play him as a human, and not an evil freak. Love your work.
It would answer many questions if the Queen would allow the remains of the two boys uncovered in the tower in 1674 to be exhumed and DNA samples taken as well as a examination of the bones for possible cause of death. One has to ask, why she will not allow this.
Agreed! Well, she's a Tudor descendant isn't she? Bringing up that can of worms might legitimize her entire family!!!
I am by no means an expert in the law but I believe there is an expectation that an interred body (in a known burial location) should be left to "rest in peace" barring a higher, pressing legal concern - evidence of crime/inheritance and paternity or maternity claims being ones that spring to mind. I don't believe scientific or historic curiosity meets the threshold. Also, can't imagine the Queen been chuffed with the idea...
That is a Very tenuous link. The present day Royals are descended from the House of Hanover and have been for centuries.
She won't do it because it could raise suspicions on her and family's inheritance of the throne if Edward IV was illegitimate and it looks like he could have been then it might throw that out for discussion and she's served her whole life as Queen and she's not going to let anything get out as long as she's alive. Also, even if they were identified as the Two Princes still couldn't prove who murdered them.
@@ReadingthePast Well, the bones were examined back in the 1930's by Tanner and Wright, but the techniques available then could not give a precise answer; there is no real reason why a proper examination could not be carried out today.
After reading Josephine Tey’s “Daughter of Time” I have discounted the Shakespeare characterization of Richard III.
And I do not believe that Richard not presenting his nephews means that they are necessarily dead. I think it would be unwise to produce to the public possible claimants to my throne.
It may have caused a riot either against Richard or against the boys.. as being both bastards and "false" royals for their lives until then.
Yep, Josephine Tey’s “Daughter of Time” did it for me too especially when it was revealed Thomas More was only 5 years old when Richard III became king.
@@p00kaah I want to check that out.
I love Tey's Daughter of Time! Made me completely rethink Richard and Henry Tudor. Such a logical analysis. I loved how everyone had their own thoughts on the picture of Richard until they found out who he was.
@@p00kaah What kind of "revelation" was that? More never claimed to have been involved or present in the time of the events. He recounted a story as he had heard it from people who were there or who had passed their story down a generation.
His story was also pretty close to that revealed in Mancini`s record of events. Mancini was there ,recorded events for his employers and the record was lost for centuries , until 1934.
A good breakdown Dr Kat but a major suspect has been ignored - Anne Neville, Richard III's queen.
As mother of Richard's only child, Edward of Middleham, she would have wanted the boys dead to clear the way for her son to become king.
As a Neville, daughter of Richard, Earl of Warwick, the 'Kingmaker' she would have learned about power politics and the Neville lust for power at her father's knee. Warwick had married her older sister Isabella to Richard's older brother George in a bid to get a Neville on the throne. That couple died but now Anne had the chance to complete her father's vision. A half Neville boy on the throne as "Edward VI'. Warwick would have loved it.
Then there is the vendetta aspect - there was a lot of that in this period. See Lord Clifford, for example.
Edward IV had caused the death of Anne's father (Warwick) and her uncle (Montague). Both died fighting Edward at Barnet in 1471. Killing the two Princes in the Tower balances up... two York lives to pay for the two Neville lives AND it clears the path to the throne for her son, Prince Edward of Middleham. It is a no-brainer as far as Anne is concerned.
She either acted to kill the boys herself, using paid agents or well-wishers, or she wheedled Richard III behind closed doors with the argument of: "We have come this far, now we have to either kill the boys or our son will never sit safe on the throne...":
Of course we now know that Edward of Middleham later died, of natural causes, which also supports the other argument that the two princes also died of natural causes. The boys MIGHT have died a natural death and Richard III simply failed to declare it fearing allegations of poison, etc.
My money is on Anne as the prime mover, probably pushing her husband - the princes' 'Uncle Dickie' - to give the order after the failed rescue attempt. Or she just gave the order herself, while the royal family were safely out of London.
Barry Slemmings (Lance and Longbow Society)
I’ve always thought Shakespeare responsible for our fascination with Richard. The character he created in Henry VI part 3 and then carried over into Richard III, is so compelling in his evil, so attractive in his repulsiveness, that everyone who encounters him becomes interested in what would otherwise be just the pitiful last scion off a great line. I think Shakespeare did him a solid albeit lefthandedly 😉
I agree. Without Shakespeare, Richard would be just one more name in the list of English kings. Thanks to Shakespeare, he is a most fascinating, controversial historical figure. That's why we're having this discussion. I'm not British, but I'm love with Richard, the man, the king and the literary character.
One of the most convoluted and fascinating historical mysteries.
I've been watching several of your videos in the last couple of days, and I am so very happy to meet you, great work, fun to listen to and I find your perspectives refreshing!! Cheers Doctor Kat!!
As far as removing a villain from the throne, I'd say the Tudor dynasty was the bloodiest in history.
1st Thousands were made to be slaughtered in a bloody battle so Henry would be king.
2nd Henry VIII tossed wives out like Kleenex, beheaded 2, executed in horrific ways, his countrymen, subjects and his close advisers. About 70,000 were slaughtered
3rd How many did Bloody Mary slaughtered non catholics, lady Jane, burned protestants at the stake including 3 sisters, one was heavily pregnant. When the flames reach her belly, it exolodes in front of her eyes, her infant she witnesses falling into the flames before she dies.
The executions did not end with Elizabeth either.
May I preface the following with this: I am NOT a member of the Richard III Society ~ Below is what I have gathered by research
Richard III was a very good and fair king. He looked to better his country for his people.
He may have had his nephews killed?
Richard is the most evil because of something unconfirmed,
We know very well what the "godsend" Tudor dynasty did, referenced above are not all, nor each and every detail of their gruesome slaughter.
Since Henry VII was banking on the belief that his wife was not illegitimate, that meant the 2 boys in the tower were legitimate and ahead of him in succession. My belief is that Henry's mother had them killed if indeed they were dead. The Henrys killed a lot of claimants.
First of all, I just want to say that I greatly enjoyed your varied points instead of talking of superlatives when it comes to Richard III. I'm kinda new to this topic, coming from Henry VIII's reign and reading up on him as a person and his court (hence, Thomas More as well). All I can say is that it never paints a good light on the suspect if their alleged crime is vindicated by emotion only, i.e. Richard III is said to have been a good and courageous leader whose jurisdiction later on as king seemed to align with good intentions towards his folk. The murder of the boys and his character don't contradict each other imho.
Personally, I can't say much more on this part as I'm about to investigate Richard III as a person further, but I think those kind traits always seem to be attributed to him when it comes to defending his case. Even counting all of those in, that doesn't speak against the fact that Richard not only was king in his realm but willingly took guardianship over the boys. If Buckingham or any other servant managed to kill the boys without Richard's approval or knowledge, that would make him an unreliable King and a disloyal protector (which you also kinda mentioned in your video and doesn't really work with his defense). Someone who demands to die on battlefield as king, comes to battlefield with his crown let alone, takes his job quite seriously and this would mean that he probably also felt responsible to secure his title in any shape or form. At this point, I could only quote what Madame DeMerteuil said, though I don't think their murder was planned the minute they were kept as prisoners in the tower per se. Rather, what I personally believe, is that the Rebellion of the cause of rescuing the princes led to a plan to dispose of them entirely. This could've been worded in whatever way from Richard's side and carried out the other. Maybe he himself wasn't even quite sure how -that- went down in detail, and that in itself seemed to be a consensus overall because Perkin Warbeck wouldn't have been a threat if everyone knew for certain that those boys were dead for sure.
Whatever really went down back then, Richard III failed in his role to protect those two boys and never publicly made an effort to speak of them in public ever again. By at least assuring that they were still alive he could've prevented any Rebellions to come - one thing which especially plagued Henry Vii's reign until his death. Maybe Richard could also have won the battle of bosworth if he haven't been deserted, which was probably due to the fact his own men believed that he was behind the murder of the princes. Not talking about them put him in a really bad position and wouldn't have been done if they were truly alive at this point.
Sorry, I'm just rambling at this point lol, but one thing that came to mind almost instantly was the case of Amber Guyger. All facts essentially pointed towards the fact that she killed her victim willingly, but defense tried to argue against that by bringing up her life before her murder, talking about what a good person she'd been and so on. Can't stress this enough: Even a "good" person can make disastrous decisions. May More or any other account of that night be wrong, there's no logical explanation as to why Richard III shouldn't be guilty for the murder of the two boys.
Thank you very much for this comment; you make an excellent point - "good" people do foolish, dangerous and "evil" things all the time. Whenever an alleged offender is defended by a friend saying "they just aren't capable of doing it" I'm never convinced! Unless they are physically incapacitated in some way, making them incapable, then they are capable of anything!
"Good" / "evil" is in the eye of the beholder - thus unreliable. Also, at so far a remove in time we can only "behold" these figures through the eyes of other, potentially biased, people - even more unreliable!
I think I occupy a similar stance to you. I'm not sure if Richard had them killed or not - on the balance of probability, however, that seems the most likely explanation as far as I'm concerned. "Good" kings in medieval England were powerful kings, but there is a fine line between power and tyranny. Richard did a lot of quasi-legal and fully illegal and "depraved" things after the death of his brother (and perhaps before). For example, summarily executing Earl Rivers, Richard Grey, Lord Hastings. His ascent to the throne and the start of his reign looks pretty tyrannical to me. The murder of two boys - regardless of them being royal and his nephews - is within a similar scope of behaviour as far as I'm concerned.
Love your subjects and enjoy your videos very much 🇺🇸💕
In case anyone accuse Shakespear for propaganda remember that he wouldn't survive for long (and even more become prominent and famous) if he was objective to his absolute monarch's grand father's archynemesis!!! The reigns of the two Elisabeths are literally the opposite in refference to free speech
I agree on your first point. I would dispute the second
No mention of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells? It was Stillington who testified to the Privy Council that he had officiated at the contract of marriage between young Edward IV and Eleanor Butler (born Talbot). By the laws of the church, this contract of marriage would invalidate Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and render the children of such a union illegitimate. Edward was already married when he married Elizabeth. Bear in mind that Edward's official marriage was done in secret and not announced until five months after the fact - when the council was already negotiating for the hand of a French princess. Why the secrecy? Unless Edward was reticent to announce his marriage given the complications of the first. Edward was a noted philanderer before and after his marriage. It is conceivable that his "marriages" were ruses to goad beautiful women into bed in an age prior to hook-up culture. Eleanor (for piety's sake) and Elizabeth (for ambition's sake) would not consent to lie with Edward without the sanction of the married state. Robert Stillington was the sole witness to Edward's initial marriage. He was a churchman of little consequence who was elevated to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells by Edward's direction. Edward made Stillington his Lord Chancellor (the king's chief minister) on two different occasions. At Edward's death, Stillington was an old man and out of politics. There is little reason for him to re-involve himself in affairs and he gained nothing for his effort. He was imprisoned shortly after the Battle of Bosworth Field by the Tudor regime.
My theory: Both boys were murdered in 83 by Tyrel on behalf of Buckingham, claiming to be acting under the orders of Richard III. Buckingham is acting under the orders of Henry VII or to please Henry VII. Henry VII uses these two murders to stir up a revolt against Richard III. When Richard III finds out what Buckingham has done, he has him executed.
Neither boy appears after 83, therefore they are dead. It isn't by Richard III or all 3 of his nephews would be dead. It isn't by natural causes or their burials would be public in Christian graves. Henry VII later imposed punishing fines under the most superficial, if not outright invented, evidence in order to control his people from revolt.
But there is equal evidence that Richard III did have the boys murdered. It's impossible at this point to know for certain who ordered the murders.
I think it was Margaret Beaufort who was careful to stay close to power, using her husbands position, to gain access to the boys who could challenge her sons right to the throne.
I've always believed that it was Margaret Beaufort as well. The arch manipulator who did anything and everything including murder, to get her son on the throne.
I agree, if not Richard, then who killed them? Richard had the most to benefit from their demise. I have never watched anything from Shakespeare, its the story itself that convinced me that Richard was the perpetrator. He never liked the Woodvilles and never wanted them in control of the crown, so he goes on a murder spree, justifying it in the name of "treason" which I believe he did to scare everyone into submission. ( bit of a loose cannon), and sadly he got his comeupins in the end 😳
It was very interesting, difficult question, probably never know, love the history though
I believe Henry Tudor or his mother was responsible for the boys' deaths, if, indeed, they were killed. Richard had no reason to kill them, having already established that they were illegitimate. That said, this is one of the most cogent arguments on the subject that I've ever heard/read. Well done, Dr. Kat, extremely well done.
There is a great video series that was filmed in the 80's I think and was a modern day court that put Richard on trial. You can watch it on UA-cam.
I remember it..I believe it was called second verdict.
A trial was held..and King Richard was found Not Guilty on the charge of murdering his Nephews..The Princes in the tower.
Henry Tudor's claim to the crown was very weak.
Elizabeth of York was 3rd in line (after her 2 brothers) for her father's crown. Henry needed help from a "good wife". So he promised to marry Elizabeth.
If her younger brothers still lived, she was could not help Henry (as above).
Now then, when was allowed to attend Richard's court, Richard promised to find her a good husband. A simple task for a King but he never got round to it.
Given that Henry's main prop was marriage to Elizabeth, Richard should have cut that off by getting her married as soon as possible. So why did he not do so. If her brothers were still alive, no need for such a quick marriage.
When Henry seized the crown (by battle), if boys were already dead he could made a great fuss about Richards villainy, but said nothing.
He married Elizabeth and executed young Warwick (14 years old) on trumped a charge of treason. Treason against the King & Queen. Elizabeth was 3rd heir Edward IV's crown where as Warwick was 6th heir for the same crown. Treason of 6th against 3rd sounds plausible.
But
While Elizabeth was 3rd heir to her father, her brothers were 1st & 2nd. Henry could not accuse 1st & 2nd heirs of treason against 3rd heir, so ........ !
In addition to the above, an act of parliament granted Richard the crown because the of Edward's secret bigamy.
Henry Tudor's parliament repealed that act & ordered all documents relating to that affair "be destroyed before reading". Only 1 copy of this act survives & is the main source of evidence against Henry.
Thomas Moore was too young to remember events of 1485 (or not yet born). Never the less he described where the boys were buried & that's where the later Stewarts found them. How did he know? A "Tudor" must have told him? Early Stewarts blamed Henry Tudor for the murder.
While it’s certainly interesting to consider other suspects, Richard III had the motive, means, and opportunity. It’s hard to believe the deaths of the princes weren’t at his orders. Others mention what a brutal time it was. Richard was similarly ruthless, not unlike his brothers, Edward and George. And I’ve never bought the argument that he didn’t see the boys as a threat because their parents marriage had been declared invalid. Obviously others agreed their claim to the throne was viable, because why else would Henry Tudor’s marriage to their sister Elizabeth be viewed as helping to strengthen his own negligible claim? As to why would Elizabeth Woodville leave sanctuary and submit to Richard, I’m assuming it was a mixture of fear and duplicity, as she was likely plotting with Margaret Beaufort by this time. Advocates of Richard always claimed Shakespeare’s portrait of him was wildly inaccurate, including the physical disabilities. And sure, a cartoonishly villainous antihero makes for a more interesting play, but the physical aspects Shakespeare ascribed to Richard were borne out by examination of his skeleton. It’s not that much of a stretch to believe he was a nefarious character, just as The Bard painted him. After all, wasn’t it fairly likely he had already been involved in regicide, with the death of Henry VI? I suppose we’ll never know the whole truth, but it was a violent, chaotic time, and given what we know of Richard through his actions (i.e. seizing the throne), it’s hard to believe he wasn’t culpable in his nephews’ death.
People in medieval times believed that one's outward appearance was reflective of their inner character or something their mother saw when she was carrying them in the womb. According to that theory, what we call a "port wine birthmark" could have been indicative of the mother seeing a bowl of strawberries; an odd mole could have resulted from the mother seeing an actual mole; a cleft palate could be caused by... I can't even come up with what they would attribute that to. But WE know the scientific causes for all of those things... and they have nothing to do with one's character. So yes, I think it's a huuuuuge stretch to decide he was a villain based on an extremely biased physical representation by Shakespeare.
Well, that’s a hugely reductive take on what I posted. Richard’s physical appearance has nothing to do with why I believe him guilty. I merely pointed out that for years, Richard’s fans have claimed Shakespeare completely misrepresented him, depicting him as a hunchback to make him seem more sinister. However, it turns out that Richard indeed DID have a severe curvature of the spine which likely caused noticeable physical limitations. I merely posited that if Shakespeare got that at least partly right, perhaps the allegation that Richard killed his nephews isn’t far off the mark either.
As both a king and an uncle, Richard III was responsible for the well-being of his nephews - especially as they were incarcerated at his pleasure. If he did not murder them, he was still responsible: for avenging their deaths if they died at the hand of another; or for giving them a public funeral if they died of disease. He did neither. Their demise was the ultimate outcome of a carefully orchestrated usurpation. There is no precedent in English history of a deposed monarch's life being spared. Ultimately, they all perish fairly quickly after deposition, and their usurpers always deserve the blame. That is the responsibility of seizing power - all outcomes that flow from that act are the fault of the usurper.
The earl of Warwick was no threat to Richard 3 as his father had been attainted.
Similarly, the threat of Edward and Richard had been neutralised by them being bastardised.
@@ReadingthePast As both Elizabeth and Mary would later prove, a spurious claim of "bastardy" did not stop a clear heir from taking the English throne - and there were some good arguments to both Mary and Elizabeth's bastardization based on undisputed facts (Katherine's previous marriage to Henry's brother, and the dubiousness of Henry's divorce from Katherine).
With Eleanor Talbot dead, there was really no solid evidence of the "secret marriage" and the illegitimacy of the princes could easily have been rescinded.
@@Visplight That is assuming that the accusation of 'illegitimacy' was against the children. What if it was against Edward?
Attainder's could be reversed, all it would take would be an act of parliament, Elizabeth of York had been declared a bastard but this was reversed by Henry Vll's parliament so that Henry could marry her. The same act of parliament also made her brothers legitimate, so if they had still been alive that would have been most inconvenient for Henry.
@@rogueriderhood1862 that's what bothers me. We know that Henry was absolutely sure the princes were dead. Because why would he reverse the attainder? But how did he know? This is one those cases that bother the sh*t out of me. I so wish the Queen would allow DNA testing on those two bodies they found. No it wouldn't tell us who killed them. But at least we would know if it was them. That would put to rest any belief that they were sent away for protection or that at least one of them made it out alive.
Richard did it. All of his actions prior to putting those boys in the tower is what led to their demise.
Will was just making a living in dangerous times.....one did not mess with the Tudors 🤐
Great video! Too many suspects, not enough proof. I hold no opinion on who done it, but am very interested in hearing about it. RE Margaret Beaufort, her husband Thomas Stanley was appointed Lord High Constable of England after Buckingham's fall. He held the office until his death in 1504. So if Buckingham could have gained access to the princes through this office, so could Stanley--or his wife Margaret. So there is the means and opportunity. She/they would have had as much opportunity as Buckingham would have, especially since Stanley rode high in Richard's favor then and some suspect that his house arrest of his wife was for show.
I am interested in learning more about the legends that Elizabeth Wydvil not only was told by Richard that the boys were alive and well, but that she was able to visit them at some point. This does make more sense of her actions in coming out of sanctuary. I do recommend Arlene Okerlund's terrific biography of Elizabeth Wydvil--a refreshing change from all the "greedy Woodville" stories--as well as her bio of Elizabeth of York.
Willioam Shakespeare, whilst depicting Richard as a villain, nonetheless plays tribute to his courage on the battlefield. He paints a tragedy, almost as if Richard cannot escape the fate to which he was born.
He also has a very witty, dark sense of humour.
A totally fascinating analysis of a shrouded and factually obscure period ... you even handedly laid out every plausible case for the two young boys . As for their royal uncle in spite of the internecine nature of the time being the eats of the roses it cannot be doubted that he was blackened and defamed by those who curried the favour of the new family regime... wonderful..
The Shakespeare play is great theatre. I was a Ricardian for many years, but I still enjoy the play. I don’t believe this mystery will ever be solved, and I think there are several reasonable suspects. As a Plantagenet descendant, I’d like to believe Richard innocent. He appears to have been well-loved in the North. Kings are kings, though, and would likely act in their best interest. I’ve always suspected Margaret Beaufort, Henry’s mother, myself.
What's to say that Richard III DIDN'T have the two secretly moved to an undisclosed location in the north of England, where Richard III had his power base? They've never actually confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the "Princes in the Tower" were the bones found in the Tower.
What happened to the bones found in the Tower? If they could be found a DNA test could prove relationship to Richard III. I've never believed he had them killed
They could have easily died of the sweating sickness.
@@celiabrickell2500 Charles II had them interred in Westminster Abbey with a State funeral. They are still there. A cursory examination was allowed during Victoria's reign that solved nothing. Some said they were about the right age, but one said he believed one was actually female! Nothing since as Betty and the rest have steadfastly refused any more testing. it wouldn't solve the overall mystery, but it would be another piece in the jigsaw. We Have Richard's DNA now, if these bones are related then we know they are the Princes, It won't tell us who killed them if they were killed, but it will tell us they Died.. If they prove to have nothing at all to do with him, again, that solves nothing, just eliminates one fake trail
@@hogwashmcturnip8930 "It won't tell us who killed them if they were killed, but it will tell us they Died."
I mean, isn't the fact that they're buried in Westminster Abbey proof that they died?
@@pinkpassion2911 No, because they have never been properly identified. The Tower was a small town in its own right then, there were all manner of people living there, including children. It is s bit of a stretch to explain why 2 other children would be under the stairs, but the last time they were examined (In the Victorian era I believe) one expert suggested that one is actually female.. Until we have conclusive proof that the bones are the 2 boys, we know nothing for definite. And the Royal Family will not allow that, so it is still all speculation
There is no question that Richard III's loyalty to his brother ended with Edward IV's death. He willingly and purposefully took the crown meant for his nephew. There isn't much honor there.
Whether the princes were murdered or died of disease, the responsibility to keep them safe was on him. Why were they even housed together? That seems short sided on many levels. There is no honor here either.
I don't think Richard III was an awful king, however. He was a good enough king. He masterfully rose to the throne. I think there i don't believe he killed any of his nephews and nieces. And the existence of Duke of Clarence's daughter and son proves that point. So, illness, accident or someone else with motive.
Yet, Richard III remains in charge of their safety. Thus the responsibility remains with him.