A lot of conjecture surrounding this one, thus making this particular video slightly different than the others. As always, I hope I was reasonably able to do the story justice. As always, thank you for your interest in the channel, and I hope I can continue to create relevant and interesting videos. Cheers!

@johnny196775

2 жыл бұрын

I am watching this right now, and I have interrupted it to say your warning at the beginning about the quality of evidence available and your approach of attempting a somewhat objective view, and then a sampling of the views of each side is very well done. I am less than 6 minutes in and already enjoying it. Thank you for your work.

@JerzeysFinest

2 жыл бұрын

I love all them the same. I look forward to these.

@anthonywarren9885

2 жыл бұрын

WOW!!!! what a great video brother. Keep up the good work. Ive been struggling with work and family but i plan on throwing you some cash to contribute to your work.

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

I am aware that Sir James Tyrell already tried for treason, found guilty and sentenced to execution was visited by Henry Tudor and his Queen. He knew his fate but confessed to them both he had arranged for her brothers to be silenced. Why confess? His fate was sealed. An act of contrition or for some mercy to be shown him? It was a brutal era but the loss of the two innocent boys was even too much for people at the time. History isn't something lifeless and a collection of dates. It lives on. Take the English public houses (bars). The leading families had personal badges as well as the traditional red and white roses. Yorkists also have the sun, Richard himself having a boar (three of his main associates were Catesby, Lovell and Ratcliffe. "The cat, the rat and Lovell the dog ruled all England under the hog".) The Earl of Oxford also had a blue boar as a badge. The white hart was the personal badge of Richard II and the Stanleys who also have the badge of the eagle and child. The Earl of Warwick has the ragged-staff. You will find pubs named after these badges throughout England and most especially in geographic areas linked with these families. Thank you so much for your interest.

@wvmountaingirl1976

2 жыл бұрын

You did a great job

This was significantly larger than I expected for a king who was never coronated lol. Yet another great video mate, keep it up!!!

Thank you for trying to tell as much of Edward's story as we know, as well as a thoroughly balanced portrayal of the arguments and counterarguments concerning his fate. Ultimately, as you said, it's the story of a young boy caught in a maelstrom too big for him to handle, and that's so often missed in the Ricardian vs. anti-Ricardian debate.

@mikealvord55

6 ай бұрын

What the hell did Ricky and Lucy have to do with it?

The main reason to believe that the boys were dead and Richard did it was that Elizabeth Woodville was ready to work with Margaret Beaufort and plot to bring back the Lancastrian cause. If there was any reason to believe that her son(s) were alive, I really doubt she would have done that, knowing how ambitious she and her family were.

@TeresaEliz

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly my thought! That is a perfect illustration of why it was Richard and not Henry VII much later or even Lady Margaret’s doing earlier. Richard was the one who had them killed! Also, Sir Thomas Moore would not have made up unsubstantiated claims. He stood up to his friend, Henry VIII.

@kevinc809

Жыл бұрын

She would have also done that if she knew her marriage and children were actually illegitimate. Or if she was led to believe Richard had them killed by the same people who actually killed them. Never trust a Tudor.

@J3diMindTrix

Жыл бұрын

​@@kevinc809 Don't know if you heard of the recent discovery proving that Edward (IV) was illegitimate? I watched a documentary on it but unfortunately cannot remember the name of it; Tony Robinson was presenting as I recall. Anyway, it was proven that during the time when Edward would have had to have been conceived, his parents were hundreds of miles apart. By the time they were physically reunited it would have had to have been something like a 10 month pregnancy to work. Apparently Cecily N is on record twice as saying that Edward was not hers; he also bears little resemblance to his 'father', and was much taller and larger. Apparently it was a strapping 6 and a half foot English archer with whom she did the deed. Rumours of illegitimacy surrounding Edward never went away, and they obviously have some basis in reality somewhere. I think it was an open secret among the inner circle of the very top of the upper classes but they daren't speak of it out loud (especially once Edward became king, and could pretty much execute his subjects as he so pleased). Once Edward passed however I think the agenda was to secure legitimacy, so pass the throne on to the actual legitimate claimant, and not the illegitimate line of Edward IV, that being Richard. Those plans however ended with his death at Bosworth. I have wondered why E Woodvile so willingly sent her last remaining son to join his brother in the tower, when she must have known how bad and unsafe of an idea that would have been for him. Had the elder brother died then the younger brother would have been the 'legitimate' heir. She must have known that was not the plan and their illegitimacy was being planned to be exposed at some point, so she re-hedge her bets and adjusted her strategy. She could make more heirs, after all, maybe she planned to marry Richard. Who knows - I'd certainly like to - but unless we get some hitherto hidden or undisclosed information from somewhere, I doubt we will get any closer to the truth of this centuries-old and unendingly alluring mystery

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

I don´t think EW would gave all her daughters to Richard´s custody if she believed that he killed her sons. Her daughters were her future and the most valuable assets she had. She never accused Richard of killing her sons even though she would profit from it in H7 regime. Most importantly Henry himself never blamed Richard of anything like this. And he would love to have this information and share it. And last but not least, at least one of the "princes" came back, didn´t he?

@jehannedarc1429

6 ай бұрын

@@TeresaEliz Very true indeed.

Thank you for posting this!!!---There isnt a lot of documentaries about the princesses and Edward the V, but this documentary was very well researched and well narrated. I am a lover of British history and I am on a journey to watch alll the documentaries and stories of England's kings and Queens. I have started on Harold the Great and I am now on Edward the V. Thank you for posting!!! :)

Richard was no stranger to killing royals. He was present at Tewkesbury when Edward of Westminister was killed and there is a huge chance that he and George personally killed Henry VI as DIY removes complications (Henry VI's death was clear cut with no other people saying an alternate story and they can easily explain away that he died of sickness if they suffocated him). But for his nephews, I think it's a Henry II- Thomas Beckett type thing. He may have wanted them dead at some point and was planning how to do it quietly but his people at the tower may have gotten overzealous and killed them in a brutal way because the brothers were always together and could have fought back. Their bodies may have bore evidence of violence that cannot be explained by sickness hence they could not show them to the public. Having both disappear simultaneously is suspicious af and is reputation suicide. Richard is a smart man to commit such a stupid act But what's done is done. If he took his own men to trial for the sake of justice it would take more effort and it would not do his rep any good anyway so he chose to stay quiet.

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

I think you have come to the right conclusion. To survive in such a brutal era you had to stop any threats. The video outlines it pretty well. Look at Sir James Tyrell. He was knighted at Tewkesbury by Edward IV. After which he joined Richard's household. Richard was Duke of Gloucester. The evening Edward and Richard stayed in London journeying from Tewkesbury Henry VI was killed. Records show Richard was present in the Tower that evening, no one else. Re-internment of Henry VI shows hair still on his skull with evidence of blood. Whether Richard struck the blow personally or like Henry II as you mention, a colleague through self-aggrandizement thought they would benefit we'll likely never know. Henry it looks like was murdered at prayer from behind. The Lancastrians in particularly were pious people founding either a school - Eton, or Cambridge Colleges like King's, Christ's & St. John's etc. The scholars from Eton and King's place lillies on the site of the murder each anniversary. Richard, his mother and his brother George had been taken prisoner after the battle of Ludford when his father and his brother Edward scarpered. They seem to have been treated well by Queen Margaret. Richard commanded a wing at Barnet, Hastings commanded the other. This didn't help save Hastings in the Council. Now let's look at Saint Thomas More Martyr. Patron Saint of Lawyers-Civil Servants. He was an excellent lawyer , his daughter married one. He rose to be Chancellor of England during Henry VIII's reign i.e. the king-pin. The King's chief minister, the person who connected the king with parliament and his privy council. His household was a beacon of thought on an international scale. He was meticulous sifting evidence, it was his job. Let's rewind a little. Robert Brackenbury despite as an ardent Ricardian, dying with him in the costly charge at Bosworth, apparently baulked at letting harm come to the boys. The person or Sir James Tyrrell seems to have been instrumental. He was arraigned on another charge, under Henry VII, that of treason and convicted. In his last hours with practically no hope of reprieve he was apparently visited by two people Henry VII King of England and Elizabeth his Queen. He is said to have confessed all, that he had organised the doing away with her brothers and named the two murderers. Why did he confess? Contrition? To up clear his soul and conscience? This was around 1503 20 years after the event. Did he try for some mercy In his sentence? He'd only hours to live. He seems to have made a full confession. This is the evidence Saint Thomas More Martyr looked at and was convinced it was genuine. Tyrrell said they were buried "under a staircase" and that they were moved subsequently. At the time of Saint Thomas More Martyr the bodies were not found. They were found in the 1670's "under a staircase". It looks like Tyrrell was talking the truth after all. He was mistaken in that they were moved. They have now been moved to Westminster Abbey. There is a Church, Saint Martin's in London, that had the right of sanctuary. When Richard was trying to marry Ann Neville the widow of Edward of Westminster, his brother George would not originally allow it as he was married to Isabel, Ann's sister and controlled all their estates. Ann had escaped confinement and Richard had her claim sanctuary in Sr. Martin's. Later one of the murderers of the boys also took sanctuary in the building. He corroborated Tyrrell's evidence. The Ricardians say it is properganda. Who do you believe? Them or a man who was martyred for his Faith? It was a brutal era but such an act was too much for some Yorkists who defected to Henry Tudor. Even their own mother agreed to the marriage of her daughter. Pitifully realising that her sons were gone. Would she have disinherited her sons had she believed they were alive. She spent her last years as a nun in Bermondsey Abbey, next to the Shard.

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

Accurate at Tewkesbury. Apparently during a lull at Tewkesbury teenage Prince Edward fought in single-combat with the experienced 6 foot 4 Edward IV dressed in his black armour. He gave as good as he got until both sides separated the beligerants. One of the might have beens if he had lived? He is buried in the Abbey next door.

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

Edward of Westminster died in the battle, Richard had nothing to do with it. It´s totally unrealistic to think that Richard could kill H6 himself. He could arrange his killing but in any case this was done on the King´s order. If the princes were dead Richard would show them. That´s how it is done with deposed monarchs. Otherwise they could have been used for rebellions. Richard remained silent because he was protecting them.

They CAN do DNA test on the bones of the 2 boys found but the Queen denies repeated requests. Maybe Charles(or George or Phillip) will allow the tests after Mum passes.

@J3diMindTrix

Жыл бұрын

Maybe now we can have the tests? I think it's pretty much a certainty that they are the remains of the princes but testing would put any doubts to rest. The very fact a test, which should be a simple matter, was refused I think says a great deal on its own, and is near enough proof without any actual scientific data I think the royals know the truth (a skeleton in the cupboard) and they would not want proof of the murder getting out into the public domain. They do have what appears to be the absolute best PR team money can buy after all. Looking at just a few of the scandals of the last say 30 years and how they always seem to come out of it unscathed; or if any damage is done they quickly bounce back, with no lasting negative consequences, it's almost miraculous at times, especially given the types of allegations associated with them, the kind that would wreak utter havoc and mean the end for most others, regardless of wealth; but then again they do have the benefit of a millennium of experience under their belt so I guess it should not come as a great surprise that their public image seems invulnerable.

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

DNA test would be useless, the bones are heavily compromised. They can be carbon dated though.

@stefandaes3066

Жыл бұрын

They don't the truth out...the Royals have always been sinister since 1066

We're lucky to have found a channel so high in in quality but low in subscriber count, remember us when you reach your first 100k subs!

Listening to you drone on about the royalty of other countries is a true joy. Seriously your channel is good

I was so excited to see a nice, long video for Edward V! There’s so little content that focuses on him out there (at least that I can find). Once again amazing work, I’m looking forward to the future!

Wow... Henry VIII looked so much like his maternal uncles & like his Mom. You can tell Elizabeth of York had dominant genes with her kids (the ones that lived past early childhood)...

finally a fully comprehensive video on the princes having watched your series its actually prompted me to start ranking all the English monarchs

@aarondemiri486

2 жыл бұрын

@@Fifty_one_cent definitely be right or the bottom or close enough not sure if anyone actually gets as bad as him though

@kalevader

2 жыл бұрын

@@Fifty_one_cent King John, not even once.

Defenders of Richard III are frankly fighting an uphill battle. He had everything to gain from the deaths of the princes, as he was next in line to the throne. He also already had a reputation as a violent and unsavory character.

@socal20001

Жыл бұрын

@@savagedarksider5934 How does that justify Richard III's adverse actions against Edward V? Your argument blames the blameless!

@J3diMindTrix

Жыл бұрын

He was the legitimate heir to the throne. His eldest brother was illegitimate (conceived via an affair between his mother and a man not his father - evidence has recently surfaced indicating that during the time of Edward's conception, his parents were hundreds of miles apart. It was apparently a tall and strapping archer with whom she did the deed, explaining Edward's lack of resemblance to his father in both his features and his large stature), his elder brother was deceased, so he was the rightful king. Indeed despite this he was loyal to Edward throughout his life fighting campaigns for him, putting his life on the line many times. Perhaps he did not press his claim so as not to bring shame to his mother. However when Edward died and his son became the monarch-elect, had he not stopped the coronation he would be knowingly consigning England to a king and potential lineage of subsequent monarchs all with no rightful claim or legitimacy to rule, while he himself knew that he was in fact the rightful king. Indeed the situation was a difficult one but for the throne of England to keep its legitimacy, from which it draws a great deal of its power, something had to be done and he only had a very short time - a matter of months - in which to do this. It was brutal and messy, but so were the times; one need only look at the damage done to Richard's body brought to light upon its recent discovery - deep cuts into bone all across the body, including the head, desecration of the corpse, genital mutilation - to see how violent of an era this was. Richard was in a very unenviable situation, and while what he did was not valiant or pretty, it can be seen as an ugly necessity, one he may well have deeply resented, but felt obligated to, especially given the lack of viable alternative options. He was the rightful king, and standing in his way were two illegitimate children - without any royal rights. I imagine he justified it as the execution of two of his subjects of the realm, as the rightful monarch. Still though no one (of sound mind) ever lauds infanticide, even if it is to secure the legitimacy of the throne of a country.

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

Richard would gain nothing if he just killed the boys and didn´t announce it. There were 16 other nieces and nephews who lived happily after Bosworth. They all had royal blood and could be used against Richard. I would gladly read your sources for "He also already had a reputation as a violent and unsavory character". As a matter of fact Richard was highly popular in the North and he continued to be popular in the whole country. He was liked and respected for his sense of justice, for supporting the printing business, for making documents in English (for example he was the first English king to make a coronation speech in English ), he made laws protecting English merchants and his legal reforms are praised until these days.

@johni5355

Жыл бұрын

@@blackcat2628zd Don't hold your breath waiting for those sources, unless of course he's going to quote the bard to you. Probably is.

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

@@johni5355 I think you are right :-)

I have been waiting for this video on Edward V... I love English/British history...

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

Keep an eye out for the Stanleys. Been middle-ranking nobility and rising from soldiery in the Hundred Years War in the 1300's. Crucial figures in the up and coming Bosworth. They had a history of fence-sitting both turned up at Blore Heath (Yorkist side), Sir William joined in, the elder Sir Thomas didn't. William fought in the biggest battle, the English "Gettysburg" in Yorkshire for the Yorkists. Sir Thomas married Lady Margaret Beaufort. This and their decision at Bosworth made them A-List in the hierarchy and of which, as Earls of Derby, they remain to this day. A notable sporting family they have left a record in horse-racing and North American ice-hockey. Sadly Sir William reverted back to being a Yorkist supported the Perkin Warbeck Rebellion for which he was executed. As for Henry VII being responsible, he didn't have de jure access, he was in Brittany. Robert Brackenbury the Constable, as referred to in the video was responsible for access, was a vehement Ricardian and died by his side at Bosworth. As the wife of the Protector Richard Duke of Gloucester, it would be expected that Ann Neville would have a new dress for Edward V's coronation. Apparently she didn't buy one or even planned a trip South, staying in Middleham Castle. Perhaps she was aware it would not take place. History is living history. The tallest building in the nation is the Shard. Next to the Shard are the remains of Bermondsey Abbey, a Convent. It was in Bermondsey Abbey that Catherine de Valois, the widow of Henry V and Elizabeth widow of Edward IV spent their last years as nuns.

Brilliant , I really liked how you put a balanced video together , for what is a very complex and controversial subject , we will never know what really happened .

The boys were under the care of Richard it’s odd to suggest Henry Tudor or any other had access to harm them

Stubbled across your channel by mere accident; however, I found this video very well thought out and executed far better than I ever could. Thanks for all the insight into subjects I love exploring about this time period. Bloody good job; I’m now a subscriber!

Step 1: DNA/pathology study of the bones in that urn!!

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't that simple. There was an e-petition to do that. They needed 100,000 signatures for a debate in Parliament. It was closed before they reached that limit. It may prove they were the boys. It's not definitive but who else could it have been? No one else seems to have gone missing. Two skeletons, the right ages. It won't tell you how they suffered their fate or who was responsible? Sir James Tyrrell was arraigned on treason charges 20 years later. He was knighted by Edward IV at Tewkesbury then subsequently joined Richard (then the Duke of Gloucester) as a servant. At his trial, after being found guilty and sentenced with hours to live he was apparently visited by Henry VII and Elizabeth his Queen and made a full confession. He knew he was going to die and it wouldn't make any difference so probably was trying to make amends for having her brothers done away with and in contrition. In retrospect it looks like the truth and accurate. He named his accomplices who carried out the deed. One of them also corroborated it. They said they were buried "under a staircase". Perhaps the clincher. They don't seem to have made that up. It was not until the 1670's when they were found "buried under a staircase". Looks like they reported accurately. Sir James Tyrrell being incorrect about them being moved. They have been, to Westminster Abbey.

Another great video 👍. I feel bad for him (being surrounded by manipulating and power hungry adults) but I can't imagine he would have been a good king. There was bad influence, court rivalries and he was just 12. I think it would have been a Richard II and Henry VI part 3.

There was no way legitimate or not Richard was going to allow the Crown to not be in the hands of a son of York. After everything they lost fighting for the crown he wasn’t going to stand by and allow an “upstart” landed gentry family to usurp that from his family

Fabulous video! I am glad. I am familiar with the story and can read the family charts. It is very complicated. Again, wonderful video.❤

I didnt know the bishop had mentioned the illegitimacy of Edward IV’s children before having done so after Edward IV death. I thought it was made up at the time of gloucester acsencion.

@gingerkid1048

2 жыл бұрын

Tudor PR was really really good.

Poor boys victims of the game of thrones..

@savagedarksider5934

Жыл бұрын

Richard killed them.

Thank you for this video, it's really well organized and descriptive

YAAAAASSSSS!!! Been waiting for this!!!👍👍👍😊😊😊❤

@Pinklady7529

2 жыл бұрын

I will definitely be supporting you on Patreon 👍👍👍❤

This is the best one so far.

Thank you for a well balanced look at this story.

Excellent video

There are some good videos on this subject out there but with the new theory out there this is very timely! Enjoying the video so far!

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

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

DNA test would be useless, the bones are heavily compromised. They can be carbon dated though.

Keep up your hard work cause I know they aren’t easy but these videos are great and I listen while driving or at work and it keeps me entertain and even though I know a lot I always learn something

I can feel that this video will blow up

I have to say that the Woodvilles remind me of the Sackville Baggins’s from Tolkien.

Great video, nice to learn more than he was one of the princes in the tower who was murdered.

Really great videos, criminally underrated channel, go go algorithm comments

Excellent! You did a great job unraveling the many aspects to this complex story. And, yes, we can hope that someday, maybe through DNA testing, we can know what happened to the boys.

So what do you think about that Eleanor Butler was dead before Edward was born and marriage wasn’t a sacrament back then in the Catholic Church and didn’t require a ceremony. It wasn’t registered with the government or anything. It was enough that they agreed they were married and held themselves out as married. So if he had been married to Eleanor, once she died his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville would have been valid. As this happened prior to Edwards birth he would have been legitimate. I read somewhere that this is why so many viewed the whole revelation as suspicious since it was bs and everyone knew it. But politics will be politics and bigger army diplomacy always wins. I’ll reserve my thoughts on Richard for his video but I’ll say that I do believe he was responsible for their deaths although I don’t believe that was his intention from the beginning. I think he just despised the Woodville’s and it was kill or be killed he figured.

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

When Hastings sent a message to Richard that Edward had died and his nephew had been recalled from Ludlow and the Royal Party would be on their way to prepare for Edward's coronation Richard, as Protector, would be required to make arrangements. The Ducal Party left but someone was missing. It's like Sherlock Holmes' "dog that didn't bark". The Ducal Party met the Royal Party at Northampton & Stony Stratford. Two of Edward's uncles were sent in imprisonment to be " Let blood at Promfet" as William Shakespeare called it. Historically the Woodvilles were Lancastrians and returned there under Henry Tudor. Elizabeth had a lot of sisters who snapped up a lot of eligible bachelors meaning daughters of long-established families went empty-handed. As marriages also meant land this don't go down well. So it was Richard's duty as Protector to make the arrangements for the coronation. With Buckingham now in the mix maybe Richard was having second-thoughts. Maybe he already had before Northampton? Who was missing? As co-organiser and wife of the Protector where was Ann Neville? It looks like she never intended to attend the coronation. It was her duty to be there play a major role and perhaps have a new outfit? Ann stayed at Middleham her childhood home. Also Richard's childhood home. She did eventually come South for her own coronation, a rare dual coronation, with her husband. Eleanor Butler was of Talbot origin, Earls of Shrewsbury. You know, the ones with the dog.😉 Her relative will play a major role leading a wing of Lancastrian cavalry at Bosworth. Sir James Tyrrell and one of his accomplices confessed to the murders. They even said where the bodies were buried but it wasn't until the 1600's when they found. They hadn't been moved, they were still under a staircase. Sir James Tyrrell had been sentenced to execution over another matter in the 1500's as a traitor. As a deathbed confession he apparently told Henry and Elizabeth his Queen in a private visit, he had organised 20 years before the removal of her brothers and gave full details. Details that seem to suggest he was telling the truth. One of the murderers subsequently corroborated what Sir James Tyrrell had said. Why did they confess, contrition? Forgiveness, ease of conscience? Either way it seems they were telling the truth. At least in details.

I blame Richard, his actions lead to the extinction of the Plantagenets. He simply didn't act as an uncle should. I have two nephews too and I would defend them at any cost against anyone. I have no doubt that he is the villain of this story. Probably not the only villain, but the main one.

@blackcat2628zd

2 жыл бұрын

Richard had other nephews (and nieces) 16 or so. All of them were alive after Bosworth. All of them could claim the throne. It wouldn´t be enough for Richard to kill just these two to secure the throne. If he was such a villain, he would have no problem removing them as well.

@nemorinoeso7581

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackcat2628zd Those kids weren't sons of a ruler. Only 3 other legitimate male line Plantagenets were alive after the death of Edward IV, the two princes disappeared, only the 8 years old earl of Warwick survived, whose father was executed for treason by Edward. The girls didn't mean any threat against any male Plantagenets, so Richard didn't need to kill everyone. I can't see Richard III as a victim of the circumstances, he didn't seem to look for the boys, or mourn them at all. He didn't act as an innocent uncle should or would in this situation.

@blackcat2628zd

2 жыл бұрын

@@nemorinoeso7581 There was no reason to mourn the boys since they weren´t dead. Otherwise Richard as a very pious man would mourn and buried them properly. Yes, young Edward was barred from the throne because of his father´s attainder but that could have been changed. All other nephews and nieces could be used as figureheads of rebellions against the king. They had royal blood. I don´t see Richard as a victim either. He did what was the best for the kingdom, he accepted the crown.

@savagedarksider5934

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackcat2628zd I personally believe Richard had the boys killed but what people have to keep in mind that the throne brought money and power-those two things cpuld drive anyone to do anything.

@smithswoodrookie

Жыл бұрын

Edward IV marrying Elizabeth Woodville is what brought down the house of York. When he died, it was the woodville who stockpiled money, weapons, took charge of the navy, didn’t inform Richard for over a week of his brothers death & tried to act against the dead king’s wishes by trying to rush Edward V down to London to get him crowned. Richard was just trying to do what his brother had instructed.. he made one decision after another and quickly realised taking the crown was the only way to survive. Had the woodvilles succeeded in getting Edward crowned Richard would have been killed once he arrested lord rivers.. who as I said was trying to rush Edward to London. The woodvilles were the instigators.. Richard was reactive not proactive in the summer of 1483.

If that painting is accurate, it looks like they had a dog, maybe more than one. The animal bones found in the mix might have been their pets. My guess is that either Richard arranged for their deaths or one of his friends did in an attempt to help him. Having no so-called legal reason to fear his nephews doesn't sound convincing, given all of the law-bending and outright disregarding that Richard did himself. If he could practice the art of the possible, it must have occurred to him that his enemies could do the same. Presumably this is why the royal family never names their kids Richard anymore.

@blackcat2628zd

2 жыл бұрын

The bones are most likely much older, even Anglo-Saxon or Norman. Mentioning law-bending in association with Richard is not right. Richard already as Duke of Gloucester was known and respected for his passion for law. He reformed the legal system noticeably (bail, choice of judges, tax free book business - printing, selling, importing, support of England´s merchants and producers vs import. Laws from his parliament were praised even by the Tudors, they even kept them. Most importantly he insisted on equality of all, he didn´t favour the rich and powerful over the poor and powerless. It cost him his life at Bosworth.

@socal20001

Жыл бұрын

Where was the Parliament in all of this? Why was there no oversight?

@MsLogjam

Жыл бұрын

@@socal20001 I expect they were busy covering their asses and trying to predict which course of action would benefit them and their friends the most, like politicians throughout the ages.

“Discussed previously”

Wow! This was a very well-done, balanced account of events at that time. If I might add, two of Elizabeth Woodville's had taken control of the navy (i.e. military) and the Treasury, which adds to the idea that she and her family were fomenting a coup.

good commentary... to fall asleep.

Great video with a balanced view. All arguments I have ever heard in defense of Richard III just don’t hold water. A lot of evidence needs to be ignored to come to this conclusion and more evidence imagined to support some claims. If for no other reason, the boys died on his watch and he didn’t announce their fate. Nothing would have happened to them without his knowledge

No matter what you may think of Richard, he was king! So, yeah....there's that.

As discussed previously...

I ❤ it

King Edward IV's younger brother Prince Edmund, Earl of Rutland had the last laugh even though he predeceased his brothers and failed to become king after his nephews King Edward V and Prince Richard died since he was killed at age 17 in the Battle of Wakefield in 1460 during the War of Roses, he has over 30,000 living direct descendants. 💐🌷🌹🌺🌸🌼💮

Richard was guilty AF.

I enjoyed this video. Is the narrator an American? His voice is pleasant and melodious ----- reminiscent of a Southern accent (Virginia, perhaps?).

You could make a 30 minute video from someone who died at 5 years old.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Quite convenient a priest stated Edward 4th kids were illegitimate. (Due to a 1st marriage.) There was no supporting evidence. And if I remember correctly, the Lady he was presumably married to, had Edwards Son.

Thomas Moore's mentor was Cardinal John Morton who was no fan of Richard III and went out of his way to demonize the latter.

Yh, it's difficult. Cheers 4 the video though.

Right on time for bed 🙏🙏🙏

Lord Protector was bestowed on Richard by his brother for a reason! Where was Richard's loyalty then? He was left to protect Edward V and the kingdom! The Woodville family was lifted above all others and they ultimately created their own fall! So important to review history with a lense of facts and understanding of human behavior!

Excellent video. I have always wondered why Edward the fifth is officially in the list of kings, and Edward the eighth is not neither one of them was coronated. Maybe someone could answer my question??

His history is brief because his history was brief

Another excellent video and well-balanced commentary. Hastings and Richard (as Duke of Gloucester) had commanded two of the three Yorkist "battles" at Barnet. He and Buckingham turned against Richard and were executed. What was the role of Ann Neville in the coronation of Edward V? As the wife of the Protector, Richard Duke of Gloucester, it would have been a starring role. A new outfit and lots of circumstance. Apparently she ordered no new outfit and never planned the trip South residing in Middleham Castle instead. Curious? Unless she was aware it wasn't going to take place. Yes Edward V could have been an impediment to Henry Tudor but he was in Brittany. He had the motive but unlikely to have the means and opportunity. Sir Robert Brackenbury the Constable you mention, was the person responsible for access. He was a staunch Ricardian, later taking some of the Tower's collection of artillery up to Richard at Bosworth and fell by his master's side in that costly charge. The important thing is that some prominent Yorkists must have thought Richard was in the frame and deserted to Henry Tudor in Brittany. Lady Margaret Beaufort with the dowager Queen via the offices of a common physician negotiated the marriage between the son and daughter. The dowager Queen must herself have thought by then her boys were gone and accepted Henry Tudor. The Richard III Society defend Richard to the last and blame Sir Thomas More, the Patron Saint of Lawyers - Civil Servants, and William Shakespeare for bias. Yes it was decades later but Sir Thomas More was a man of Faith paying the ultimate price and a notable lawyer. He knew how to sift evidence, it was his occupation. If he said the boys were buried at the foot of a staircase and later removed he was in error with the latter contemporaneously but writing in the 1500's he was spot on with the former. The remains weren't found until the 1600's - at the foot of a staircase, thankfully also now removed to Westminster Abbey. Bringing it into the modern age the tallest building in the nation is the Shard. Next to the Shard are the remains of Bermondsey Abbey, a large Benedictine Convent. Both Catherine de Valois (widow of Henry V) and Elizabeth W. (widow of Edward IV) spent their last years there as nuns. Thank you so much. 🙂👍👏👏

@lovablesnowman

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm sorry but I really don't think the Richard 3rd guys have a leg to stand on here. He killed those boys.

You'd think Elizabeth would have scotched that tradition. Yes, they use "scotch" about a million times on "The White Queen."

I don't think Richard III killed his nephews as he had them declared illegitimate via the Titulus Regulus. Now Henry VII had a reason to have his brothers in law put to death as he had them as well as their sisters re-legitimized to marry Elizabeth of York & claim the throne...

@gonefishing167

2 жыл бұрын

I’ve always thought Margaret Beaufort had a hand in it. That woman would have done anything for her son. She may have been a pious woman but a smart and shrewd one who used her marriages brilliantly . Just my opinion 👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺

@English_Dawn

2 жыл бұрын

Henry Tudor had the motive but not the means or opportunity. He was living in exile in Brittany practically penniless. The Tower of London was strictly under Sir Robert Brackenbury the Constable. Nothing got past him without his say-so. He was a Ricardian loyalist, eventually taking some of the Royal artillery kept in the Tower to Bosworth and was killed next to Richard in that costly charge. Another Ricardian loyalist was as is mentioned in the video Sir James Tyrrell. Sir James Tyrrell fought for the Yorkists and was knighted by Edward IV subsequently joining Richard's staff. He was a Yorkist through and through, later put on trial for treason and condemned to execution. After sentence was passed it is given that Henry Tudor took his Queen to visit him and he confessed to ordering silencing her brothers. Why? Contrition? To have some mercy? This isn't Lancastrian properganda? Although some years later Saint Thomas More Martyr, the patron saint of lawyers-civil servants and a man who died for his Faith and professional lawyer, who could sift evidence accepted the Sir James Tyrrell confession as valid. It was said in the video that the two boys were buried under a staircase, and then later moved. This is the confession. Saint Thomas More who became Chancellor to Henry Tudor's son wrote this in the 1500's. The bodies of two boys were not discovered until the 1600's. Albeit they hadn't been moved afterwards, they were found under a staircase. Subsequently they have been moved to Westminster Abbey. Who do you trust, the Ricardians or Saint Thomas More Martyr?

@jamellfoster6029

2 жыл бұрын

@@gonefishing167 EXACTLY

@08andylee

2 жыл бұрын

There still were attempts to rescue the boys from the Tower. Acts of Parliament could be overturned, and Richard knew that. Most of the commons didn't believe that the boys were illegitimate anyways.

@CaptainPikeachu

2 жыл бұрын

Declaring them illegitimate wouldn’t have stopped them from being a threat, someone could always find a way to overturn that declaration. Richard’s throne would never be fully secured as long as his two nephews were alive.

Simply follow the money so to speak. Who benefited from their disappearance.

This story is 😔 sad.

The Ricardian claims for Richard III innocence's is very weak....you can logically see that he was a very seriously destructive man and knew very well that Edward had rights to be king...but he want that position...Common sense will tell you their claims are frightfully wrong and illogical

I've studied the hell out of the War of the Roses royalty. Especially Richard III. I've never heard anyone else ever allege that there could be any reason that he didn't kill his nephews. But I always saw one blaring fact that could give him reason to not kill them. You hit on that here. I think one one thing that Richard III definitely wasn't, is naive. I think he knew that Edward's head was on a chopping block as soon as his dad died. And I think Richard had the boys ultimately smuggled out of the tower, and probably out of England. I think Richard "took up his cross" and was the true protector of his family by letting his nephews escape under the guise of presumedly being dead.

Look at Henry seven in the panting and check his fingers.

It has always made the most sense to me to lay blame for these murders at the feet of Henry Tudor (Henry VII), who made a career of doing away with rivals to his claim on the throne. The National Gallery portrait shows Henry’s cold and calculating character.

@stephenparker4083

8 ай бұрын

And Henry VIII was a similarly cold blooded killer.

So if the priest says the old king had all these children in a bigamous marriage and a council decides that Richard Duke of Gloucester should be king, why did they go to the Abbey and get little Richard. Because as far as the council was concerned they were just illegitimate boys of the old king. My opinion is that Richard Duke of Gloucester knew that he was grasping at straws by getting that priest to sat the old king had been married before and he had the get rid of these boys before they became men.

The question is was they murderd or did they die of illness considering things I for onse belive the princes died of illness and all things considerd non of the pepol involved in this had anything to win of just dissepearing the princes but instead had anything to gain by showing their bodys off as it would show they were dead also there were ways of killing them without showing hense I lean towords they died of illness and that it possebly could been contagus or it could been illness that marked the bodys badly

@helene4397

3 ай бұрын

If those boys had died due to illness, Richard could have showed it around publicly, and then buried them with their names, and most likely near the resting place of their father.

@Wenchework

3 ай бұрын

@@helene4397 Not nesserly could been meny resons why and also the reaction and actions of Elizabeth their mother afterwords speak to that she did not belive Richard had anything to do with the deaths and considering things and date illness is the likely cause,as for him not doing thise things could be meny resons for that besides faul play that we don’t know and in thise times and considering their status in some cases if someone had surten illnesses it was to be keept hidden also it could be reson why they had to bury them fast,as for them not being buried with their father remember Richard had made them illegitimet hense the most likely reson they were not buryed with their father and the illegitamasy also made them not a threth to him

What about the theory that Edward IV himself was a bastard?

So sad 😫😪😭😭😭😭😤😢🤧🤧😱😱😱

Thank you, well done. It’s thought that the marriage wasn’t the first Edward had entered into to get his way. Richard had a very good reputation in the north as a fair and just man and a loyal supporter of his brother - unlike brother George. I think it would have been a disaster for the country if the Woodvilles ruled. They were not popular as they were everywhere in public life . I’m so far as marrying a child to the old duchess of Norfolk I think it was. She was about70 and the child about 6 . It’s said she was dragged kicking and screaming to the altar. Thomas more was writing 40-50 years after the fact and he wasn’t as pious a man as thought. He was pious but to the point of burning or be heading anyone who didn’t follow his religious beliefs. Also doubt as to whether Catherine of Valois ever married Owen Tudor. What a mess to try to decipher. And ‘woe betide the country that has a child for a king’. People will still be debating this dr generations to come. Everyone picks a side and stays to it. 🤣🤣🤣👵👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺

@blackcat2628zd

2 жыл бұрын

It is difficult to imagine how people were thinking 500 years ago. Thomas More , genuinely believed he was saving their souls. He was very pious he was even wearing a hair shirt all the time. His infamous book about Richard III wasn´t biography .More likely it was a satire. Lot of dialogues and "mistakes" starting in the 1st sentence. He never finished it, never intended to publish it and the book was changing with each transcription.

@gonefishing167

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you black cat. Very interesting. I never knew he had no intention of publishing it though I had heard that he wore a hair shirt. Gosh, one little thing caught in my clothes drives me silly! They were either very brave, pious or very stupid. Must be lovely in a way to be so very sure of your belief system. 👵👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺

@blackcat2628zd

2 жыл бұрын

@@gonefishing167 Yes, I agree with you. To have such a strong faith must be comforting. But the life back then was so terrible that they didn´t have a choice I guess. This is the very first sentence of TM "bioghraphy" of R3: King Edward of that name the Fourth, after he had lived fifty and three years,2 seven months, and six days, and thereof reigned two and twenty years, one month, and eight days. The mistake is so obvious, everybody a bit educated knew that Edward died aged 40. TM wrote both English and Latin versions of the book, haven´t finish neither of them. They were published 13 years after his death by his son-in.law.

All the arguments for why it was anyone other than Richard III are so dumb. Cant admit RIchard III was an ambitious politician who had everything to gain ( as did those who supported Simnel and Warbeck), so on to more elaborate fairy tales with Tudor propaganda thrown in there and suddenly Richard III is the poor sweet good misunderstood uncle just doing his best. Clashes to much with child killer. Sure we may never know for certain what exactly happened, but denying Richard had motive, means and opprotunity and did indeed gain his objective is pure stupidity.

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

Richard would gain nothing if he just killed the boys and didn´t announce it. There were 16 other nieces and nephews who lived happily after Bosworth. They all had royal blood and could be used against Richard. Richard´s problem was, that he WASN´T a politician. He didn´t plot against anyone, considered all people equal before the law, cared about education for all (English printed books, including bills from his Parliament) and didn´t take bribes.

@rosysulla

Жыл бұрын

@@blackcat2628zd nevertheless, he had most to gain and did in fact gain the crown

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

@@rosysulla Richard became King on 26 June, 1483, crowned 6 July 1483. The boys disappeared from view in August or September. He really didn´t need to kill them. And he didn´t.

@rosysulla

Жыл бұрын

@@blackcat2628zd but arresting them is ok i guess

@blackcat2628zd

Жыл бұрын

@@rosysulla To stay at The Tower before the coronation was tradition. Later they stayed there for their protection. Tower was a very busy royal palace. Prison was just small part of it. The bloody image came from the Tudors.

You have to stop staying as touched on previously. It’s driving me insane

I dont think Edward V deserves his own video. He was never actually king. He died without ever being coronated. The important points about Edward V can be rolled into Richard III's video.

Richard did nothing wrong