Really Bad History: The latest Richard III Conspiracy

Related articles and links.
www.dailymail....
devonchurchlan...
murreyandblue....
www.creditonco...
www.visitmidde...
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon / davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribes... and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstark... to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstar.... Thank you for watching.
Please do not re-upload any David Starkey Talks video without permission.
#Davidstarkey #Davidstarkeytalks #History

[@davidstarkeytalks]

Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.

[@stephenmarley7281]

Henry Tudor: "I plan to build a car park in Leicester." Richard III: "Over my dead body,"

[@ruthcollins2841]

😅🤣🤣Good one!

[@madiantin]

Hahaha. This made me chuckle for some appreciable length of time. =D.

[@heatherfromcheshire7392]

@@madiantin Me too :D

[@holly7869]

LOLOLOL Happy New Year!

[@beckyenglish4783]

Love it!

[@robinearle7225]

The Daughter of Time is a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey, concerning a modern police officer's investigation into the alleged crimes of King Richard III of England. It was the last book Tey published in her lifetime, shortly before her death. In 1990 it was voted number one in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list compiled by the British Crime Writers' Association. In 1995 it was voted number four in The Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list compiled by the Mystery Writers of America.

[@savannahbanks]

Just finished this great book…. Again! Loved it for decades!

[@suebursztynski2530]

@@savannahbanks . I bought my copy after my Year 11 English teacher told us about it, many years ago. More recently I’ve been listening to the audiobook read by Derek Jacobi, over and over. A wonderful novel! It couldn’t be written now, because Grant would just get his laptop and check everything on line.

[@nbenefiel]

Daughter of Time is one of my once a year reads.

[@suebursztynski2530]

@@nbenefiel I read or listen to it more even than that! 😉

[@cfrandre8319]

@@nbenefielditto

[@Longshanks1690]

If I could add some constructive criticism, the team editing David’s videos should add some visual cues when he’s talking about something we should be looking at as it would help to illustrate the point he’s making better.

[@davidstarkeytalks]

Thank you for your comment. Sadly only non-copyrighted images can be used. There are links to photos of the church and articles on the matter in the video description.

[@Dude0000]

@@davidstarkeytalks Hey David. I’m a common northerner as yourself, but try to ‘rise but not forget’ my start in life rather than ‘embrace who I am’ as one, or worse, ‘middle class who drops my h’s to feel like a commoner’ (commoner as not many people who identify as working class seam to do Manuel labour, or any at all these days). Would love to bring the wife to meet you, and not be worried that she’d run off with you…not because she wouldn’t, but you wouldn’t, very attractive and educated as she may be.

[@sharonalbanese8084]

Very good point, it would certainly add to the experience.

[@AntPDC]

@@davidstarkeytalks Hi David. In the realm of copyright, KZbin recognises the concept of "Fair Use", particularly in the field of education, critique and commentary, as here.

[@bonusgolden12]

But..then we would miss Dr. Starkey's face.

[@elizabethtaylor9242]

Hmmm! Whatever anyone says Philippa Langley found Richard’s buried body when all sorts of experts thought it impossible.

[@MsMounen]

But how can we say that wasn't nonsense as well? It seems as though mainstream media wants to spread misinformation to the general population now. They made a whole program about the boys in the tower, which David here has picked apart quite easily. Why didn't they check the information first, before putting that program on air? It wouldn't have been difficult. Having said all that, we know their journalists can't be bothered to check their information either.

[@catherinelw9365]

I really enjoy Mr. Starkey's talks. As an American, I have no skin in the game regarding Richard III, the Princes in the Tower, as compelling as they are. I'm of the mind that Richard killed his nephews to remove any threat to his reign - Occam's Razor. The rumors of their deaths started in 1483. If they were alive, why didn't he publicly parade them to show they were still around? If they were killed, why didn't he open an inquiry? The other thing that I find interesting is apparently he tried to have Edward and Elizabeth's marriage annulled by Parliament. I thought marriages were annulled by ecclesial courts at that time. Why did he attempt to bypass that? The way some women defend Richard reminds me of those women who write to serial killers in prison, and eventually marry them. I don't see men doing that.

[@l.plantagenet2539]

If Richard had killed his nephews after his death why didn't Elizabeth Wydeville and King Henry VII ever accuse him? Henry never had the Tower searched. Was it because he knew they weren't there? I believe that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York. In fact, Richard's Paternal Aunt, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy backed Perkin to usurp the throne. She believed Perkin was her nephew. There's other viable suspects if boys were murdered. Richard had him fitted for his coronation gown and even started minting coins with Edward's likeness on them. Snarky Starkey is a very biased historian which doesn't make him a good historian. If you really want to know check out Matthew Lewis or John Ashdown-Hill. Matthew is a former attorney turned historian and a Ricardian but unlike Starkey he's a great historian because he believes Richard was innocent but also puts Richard's warts and all out there. He's very balanced. This man has made children cry because he's a rude buffoon.

[@fiachramaccana280]

Totally. The simplest explanation is generally the truth.

[@lizzydripping2862]

David has much “ skin in the game “ lol

[@garymitchell5899]

This idea of women defending Richard is interesting. Apart from Ms Langley, who else are you thinking of?

[@bethanyhait6880]

Also, Richard’s argument regarding Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage doesn’t hold water. At the time, a marriage was considered legal if the relationship was recognized publicly before witnesses, and consummated. And EIV and Elizabeth’s relationship was. Even after factoring in Eleanor Talbot (who died before any of Elizabeth’s children with EIV were born).

[@coling3957]

we all know in fact that Edward V married an American actress and went to live in the New World.. where he became a chief impact officer

[@matthewturner2803]

Correct.

[@richardgarnier4025]

And more recently Mike pillow Lindel identified him as one of those who voted illegally in the 2020 presidential election

[@coling3957]

@@richardgarnier4025 why are there dead ppl on electoral rolls..? Rudy Guiliani named ppl who'd been dead since the 80's who had voted in every election since. in UK dead ppl are removed, but in USA when Republicans call for dead ppl to be removed, Democrats go to court where a compliant judge rules that ppl dead for over a decade must remain.. so ofc someone is voting for them. without fraud Dems would not win anything.

[@Oliviawww164]

Thank God. Brain food at last. Happy New Year Dr Starkey.

[@stevenbrown8857]

Common sense and educated commentary, long live Dr David Starkey

[@WILKSVILLE]

Thank you David, best wishes for the the coming new year.

[@paulholloway1447]

Love your history talks , simply great

[@peterstephens6700]

Great to hear from you again. I miss our chats at the old Falcoville. Best, Peter.

[@zoobee]

David, I hope you had a lovely Christmas and I wish you a happy new year. Your video arriving in this twixmas zone is just the perfect tonic xXx thank you

[@mickymantle3233]

David Starkey. A treasure of the nation ! Thank you.

[@lisawilliams7836]

Thank you very much Mr Starkey, Wishing you "A Very Happy New Year!"🥂🍾

[@ryanwindsor2407]

Mr Starkey, please have a glass of good wine and relax or your blood pressure will go through the roof, and we can't have that as we need your expertise for future debunking.

[@fiachramaccana280]

This is what happens when people treat history like a crossword puzzle..... it isnt....

[@johnlonie7899]

Enjoyable, very much so, and informative. Thank you.

[@nicoleroth3127]

Just a short note in regards to Mancini taken as definitive proof: He was an Italian cleric and diplomat who didn't speak any English, sent to England by Bishop Cato, working for the French court, to report back to him as to what was going on politically and before Edward IV had even died. Not an ideal candidate for such a job, one could say. And with that, his being in England isn't even initially connected to the chaos that ensued after Edward IV's death, and is, at any rate, what other people passed on to him. How informed they, in turn, were is difficult to say. Albeit, Mancini does indeed report, that the two boys are assumed to be dead and possibly murdered by September 1483, and he claims to have witnessed people breaking out in tears over their fate. However, he also states very clearly, that while he has heard these rumours, they are just that, for he was unable to find out what had really happened to the sons of Edward IV, which is where he leaves his report. So no, he doesn't say anything definitive about the two princes' fate, but only reports what some people assumed happened to them. Nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore, the Croyland Chronicler also gives us no other information than there having been rumours that the two lads had been killed and that Richard didn't refute these allegations but allowed them to be spread. Which is rather unusual, I would say, though that's obviously my own opinion, which consequently doesn't say anything. Rumours however, last I checked, aren't facts, and while there usually is a grain of truth to every rumour, the mere relocation of the boys could have been enough for some to assume the worst at them not being seen in the Tower anymore. That's actually human nature. I literally had a fairly similar thing happen to me, where people assumed I had separated from my husband because due to the lock-down and working from home, renovating and falling off a horse leaving me incapacitated for some weeks, they didn't see me around for several months on end, when normally they would see me quite frequently. My prolonged absence from my usual haunts was the only kernel of truth in all of this and I'm still happily married. Just to give you an example as to how quickly rumours can grow from a molehill to a mountain. Anyway, with that, the Chancelor of France could hardly know whether the boys had really been murdered or not, or even whether they were really dead, because no-one knew what happened to them. But with France then also faced with the problem of a boy-king, and with England being a mortal enemy, he had every reason to point fingers and make sure everyone in France saw Richard as a threat stopping at nothing and who could possibly finish what his brother Edward had attempted, namely to re-conquer the French territories the English lay claim to. In the end, what we know adds up to almost nothing, and the little information that we have can be interpreted in whichever way we want to fit our own narrative. I admit to being biased in this respect, and own up to it. However, I am always willing to accept any scientific proof whether it reflects my initial opinion or not. As yet, there isn't such a thing, and so I'll stick to my belief that Richard didn't murder his nephews, because for me, that is what makes the most sense. And I say that with originally starting off with a traditionalst's view only to change my mind once I looked deeper into the matter out of curiosity. I'm not a historian but have a background in law and criminology, so I might also be biased in respect of the common principle of considering someone innocent until proven guilty. Okay, so do I, clearly having Ricardian views on the matter, think this new theory a likely one? Actually, no. As yet I don't find the evidence that John Evans is, in fact, Edward V convincing enough. I moreover felt a little let down by it and will have to see what else they bring forward to prove their point. That said, this is not a conspiracy, it's a theory, which is an altogether different thing. Not a convincing one, as I've already said, but regardless. P.S.: I saw that some people commented on Elizabeth Woodville clearly thinking her sons to be dead in 1483, and that could very well be true, considering that she was in sanctuary and had limited acces to the latest and especially any reliable information. In short, even that doesn't say much. In that respect, it is interesting to note, by the way, that two of the few people allowed access to her were her physician whom she shared with Margaret Beaufort, and Margaret herself. In short, she could easily have been manipulated into thinking that her sons were dead. But even her agreeing to marrying her eldest daughter to Henry Tudor could have been in exchange for Henry helping her son back onto the throne, with the additional promise to return Henry's titles and lands. Otherwise, she, just as Richard, remains oddly obscure as to her sons' fate but never does she actually blame Richard of her sons' murder even after his death. Moreover, she hands her other children into his care once she comes out of sanctuary. Now, sure she could have been pressured into this, but being a mother myself, never in my life would I entrust the murderer of two of my children with the care of my other children, especially seeing, that England had no law that barred women from succession, which technically put them in the same danger as their brothers. Now, we have the wisdom of hindsight, knowing that the English didn't rally behind Elizabeth of York, but at the time, Richard couldn't have been sure of that. On top of that, he had a third nephew (also a young boy), the son of his next older brother George, who albeit barred from succession from the Yorkist side due to his father's treason, had technically also inherited a claim to the throne from the Lancastrian one. He, too, survived his uncle's reign unharmed, but was later executed by Henry VII because of the threat he posed. As said, we don't really know anything, and what we do know is open for interpretation, or we wouldn't even have any such debate. Have a lovely evening you all, and let's hope that 2022 will be a better year.

[@renshiwu305]

The only Yorkist claimants who were definitively killed were killed by Henry VII and his son: John, Earl of Lincoln; Edmund, Duke of Suffolk; Edward, Earl of Warwick; and Margaret, Countess of Salisbury. What I find most damning about Elizabeth Woodville is that she agreed to marry her daughter to, frankly, a rather flimsy claimant to the throne who was a tool of the French Crown and to the downfall of her husband's house. She profited nothing by it, spending the remainder of her life immured in Bermondsey Abbey. She was at base a social climber - like Anne Boleyn, like Wallis Simpson, like Meghan Markle - with no sense of honor or duty. John Morton (Henry VII's Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal of the Church, and the Bishop of Ely in Shakespeare's play) _did_ profit through the Tudor ascendance. He was originally a Lancastrian before insinuating himself onto Edward's Privy Council, extending into Richard's protectorate. He was a slippery political operator and a turncoat - like the Stanleys, who of course delivered the crown to Henry VII through an instance of literal backstabbing. John Morton was the patron of Thomas More and no doubt fed him ideas for his spurious history of Richard III.

[@nicoleroth3127]

@Helsby Yes, you do have a point. However, from what and how he writes, it can be concluded, that he stayed neither with nobility nor at court, but most likely with an Italian merchant living in London, or another private household. He was not in England as an official, even though he had been sent there. He himself basically admits to passing on second-hand information, in effect rumours. As said, rumours usually can carry truth, but to what extent is, in regards to his report, impossible to say over 500 years down the line. So, as I wrote earlier, while one cannot discard his account, neither can one take it as the absolute and definitive truth. That's exactly what I meant when saying that almost everything we have to go on, is open to interpretation and why there is so much controversy. Most likely, the truth is somewhere in-between, neither black nor white, but some shade of grey.

[@ogukuo97]

@Helsby That's what I thought too. The language of diplomacy was French at that time, not to mention IIRC that English nobles spoke French.

[@nicoleroth3127]

@@ogukuo97 Yes, at the time French was still a commonly used language of the nobility, however, since Henry V English was the language spoken at court. And as I've pointed out in my second comment, while Manchini was a diplomat and sent by Cato to England to see what was going on there, he wasn't there as an official diplomat and neither staying at court nor with an English nobleman but at what seems to be the private household of a fellow Italian living in London. Of course with that, his host could've translated things for him. But it doesn't change the fact, that he didn't actually have first-hand information on anything and that a lot of what he wrote, he admits to being rumours. So yes, the two of you have a valid point, but it still doesn't change the fact, that his report is more likely than not flawed.

[@08andylee]

Elizabeth Wydville was also very smart and had people ready and willing to sneak her any info on what was going on. She knew what was going on and was no fool even if she was stuck in sanctuary.

[@danielplantagenet8385]

David is just brilliant! X

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

I love Starkeys talks. Reminds me of my professors from days gone by; knowledgeable but an absolute dinosaur socially and culturally.

[@twiley3530]

I'd love if you could show pictures but won't stop me from listening to all your fabulous works! I'm going to go find pictures of Evans' tomb.

[@CynthiaBoener]

Absolutely love Dr. Starkey's methodical, meticulous, and objective approach to history - he is a true gem among historians.

[@clairhughes2979]

Very much enjoyed this detailed video. Thankyou

[@barrybarlowe5640]

Gentleman appears learned, but he needs to SHOW - not talk about it and give links. He doesn't need screen time. His evidence does.

[@stevecrane6163]

P.S. Private Eye (as usual) debunked the bones in the car park at the time brilliantly: "The Body in the Supermarket Car Park. The crucial evidence that proves it's Richard III. 1. The body was found in a disabled space. 2. Near a hump. 3.And a Yorkie Bar wrapper. 4. During a winter of discontent. 5. DNA reveals remains of Richard's horse nearby, in aisle seven." You couldn't make it up could you - but some people can.

[@eshaibraheem4218]

So funnny!

[@doasyouwouldbedunto]

It was a social services car park, not a supermarket

[@heliotropezzz333]

Philippa Langley creates plenty of work for historians. Interesting points made in this video.

[@jeffarmstrong1308]

Excellent presentation and very timely with the aggressive launch of the Ricardian apologists in recent weeks (late 2023), particularly the Channel 4 documentary about the Princes in the Tower, this topic rears its head once again. This programme seems to be based on equal parts wishful thinking and selective blindness. The worst examples are ignoring the contemporaneous account of Mancini and accepting without question the so-called Dutch transcript. The latter is purely hearsay evidence. I was most disappointed to see that Philippa Langley is one of the leading apologists, especially as she has a great deal of credibility from her more solidly based work.

[@frontenac5083]

This programme was indeed a joke!

[@francisaugistino701]

Fascinating. Wonderful video, but I cannot take the loud swallows. It’s more that I can endure.

[@patavinity1262]

Utterly pathetic isn't it? Even an averagely-educated person ought to be able to recognize what ermine looks like.

[@philipdoran6596]

Wonderful, thank you

[@Pablo668]

Subbed!! Great talk. Watching the documentary on the King in the carpark, I was quite shocked when they actually found Richard III. As good as it was to find him and lay him to rest again, and somewhat rehabilitate his reputation, to me there was the risk of it enabling Phillipa Gregory to start believing her own nmore out there nonsense. I have to admit, the Plantagenets are my favourite part of English history. Things seem a tad more simple and easy to follow in their time. Once you're into the Tudor period it is a slow journey into a distinctly more modern world where htings like ministers and policy start to creep into the record.

[@lalaholland5929]

Hello Professor Starkey, Would you br able to give a talk about that tier of siblings: Edward IV; the Duke of Clarence & Richard III. And, what do you think about Richard, Duke of York's taking the crown. Was his kingship good for England?

[@obcl8569]

6:00: I could never conceive of correcting Dr. David Starkey, and indeed I know this was a momentary slip, but making a note for the sake of clarification: Elizabeth Woodville's first husband was Sir *John* Grey of Groby, who was killed in 1461 at the Second Battle of St. Alban's. Their two sons were Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset, & Richard Grey. EDIT: 16:28: I believe Richard of Shrewsbury, second prince in the tower, was actually Duke of *York,* not Duke of Gloucester. OOOPS - I didn't see the correction written in red! Apologies!

[@cathywork2156]

Well, they’ve done it with other royals and they can do it with these boys. Everybody wants it solved. Is there a reason they don’t wanna solve it?

[@lefantomer]

Yes there is. For the "historians" it will be embarrassing. Langley has stated that she has observed for some time that those seeking a second look at the accepted "wisdom" of More, Shakespeare, and the rest are pressured to cease and desist by the historical establishment. With at least a dozen tomes published claiming to have discovered "who really killed the princes in the Tower!!" when there is now virtually no evidence that this happened, well, just let sleeping dogs lie!! It's a good story, wikkid uncle has innocents brutally murdered and buried 10 feet down at foundation depth in the Tower of London and then dug up by a lone priest who puts one now stiff, smelling corpse under each arm and toddles off to find secret resting places for the poor dears. It's the stuff that heel-digging-in resistance to challenge is made of.

[@annaine]

So, Henry VIII must have believed that his mother was not illegitimate? Wasn’t that the reasoning behind the petition made to Richard III to take the throne after Edward IV died? That his marriage to Elizabeth Wydville was bigamous, thus making their children, hence Edward V, illegitimate? If Henry VII believed the same, then he had a greater motive to murder Edward V and the Duke of Gloucester.

[@adagietto2523]

Great stuff!

[@celiaparker6166]

Excellent talk on how to do history properly. Just one quibble, the two Thomas Greys, marquis of Dorset have been conflated. The older died in 1501 and it was his son who was imprisoned by Henry VII and restored to favour by Henry VIII.

[@robertcarrolan7478]

Edward 5th however was never crowned 👑 being imprisoned in the Tower with his younger brother Richard of York by their scheming uncle Richard 3rd. So it's probably a depiction on the window not of Edward 5th but of his Father Edward 4th who was also always depicted in contemporary images with long hair and who was most definitely crowned king

[@891Henry]

The church suffered from deterioration and the Victorians refurbished it. The windows seem to have been repaired and only bits of stained glass have survived. I would love to know what the original windows portrayed. That might have put this whole mess to bed. And there is an inscription under the window of 'the king' but I cannot make it out.

[@BradJames83]

Why would rebels make the effort to create pretenders out of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, if Edward V or his brother Richard was still alive?

[@blackcat2628zd]

Are you quite alright? "Perkin" was Richard of Shrewsbury. 24 May 1487, Simnel was crowned in Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin as "King Edward" .

[@BradJames83]

@@blackcat2628zd Warbeck was Belgian and had no relation to the Plantagenets. Everyone knew it; even the rebels.

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@BradJames83 Why almost all European courts refer to him as Richard, Duke of York in their correspondence? Why the Scottish king allow him so marry a Scottish noble woman? Why he had a backing of William Stanley and other Yorkists?

[@BradJames83]

@@blackcat2628zd They didn't care.

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@BradJames83 Are you serious? How could they not to care? William Stanley supported "Perkin" because he believed he really is Richard of Shrewsbury. It cost him his life. Would Margaret of Burgundy support an imposter? Why was he not allowed to meet his sister? Why the beatings in the face?

[@murraycatto1]

Thank God for the voice of reason.

[@martygahan]

Richard III always gets a bad press.

[@rtalbeau7965]

Deservedly so. How anyone can think he was not involved in the boys’ deaths is just mind-boggling to me. My undergrad degree is history but my doctorate is in law and my career has been writing legal opinions for the judiciary as a research attorney. It is abundantly clear to 95% of most people and probably 100% of distinguished historians that the circumstances all point to Richard’s culpability! And Dr Starkey is right, all the people of those times, who undeniable had access to info that these modern day and misguided history rewriters, clearly do not. What really offends me is their inability to make consistently LOGICAL arguments, and their obvious inability to address the problems with their assertions when put to them. It’s not even worth arguing with them, because they are married to their stand. For instance, I see incorrect things written in these comments by Ricardians, but I just smirk and scroll along and ignore them. Btw-while Dan Brown has a talent for writing, nobody can say that the Davinci code is logical or makes complete sense.

[@martygahan]

@@rtalbeau7965 Great reply./

[@cherrytraveller5915]

Considering the people he killed he rather deserves it

[@wodantheviking]

This new theory is fascinating because the whole history of the period, indeed of any period, is utterly fascinating. Dr Starkey is such an amazing analyst and communicator of history that I think twice before questioning his opinion on anything to do with history. However, I have thought twice and have a few questions, which could point to answers consistent with the new theory. If they are based on misunderstanding, or lack of information, I apologise. 1/ The letter from Elizabeth Woodville to her older son, the half-brother of the two princes: Why would she persuade him to return to England, if she thought Richard had murdered, or would murder the Princes in the Tower? This would expose her to the risk of losing her remaining son, if indeed the two princes had been murdered and surely, it is inconceivable that a mother would do that? 2/ Did the Marquis of Dorset actually return to England, from the camp of Henry Tudor, indicating that Elizabeth Woodville had put trust in Richard? 3/ Would not the price for the survival of all her sons be her absolute silence on the matter? 4/ The significant thing about the 41 deer on the window is surely the coincidence of the number, not the deer? 5/ Did Richard really have significant grounds for thinking his older brother had been illegitimate, which would have made Richard the legitimate king? 6/ If he really thought question 5 was true, is it not conceivable that Richard could have contrived a humane solution? Had his behaviour really been bad before? 7/ If John Evans had been a servant of Edward V, would there not be a record of it? Would he likely have been the same age? Finally, I have a personal coincidence to mention. A number of years ago I saw Dr Starkey crossing the concourse of Waterloo Station, or it may have been Paddington. The reason that I was in London that day was that I had just been to see a performance of Shakespeare's Richard III with my wife, at the Old Vic, featuring Kevin Spacey! We went on to visit the Tower of London too. This was a coincidence, but no police investigation is necessary! However, as Shakespeare said, 'All the world is a stage'. Maybe it is!

[@nbenefiel]

The story that Edward was somehow illegitimate came from George, not Richard. Richard was devoted to both Edward and his mother. He would never have accused his mother of adultery.

[@wodantheviking]

@@nbenefiel What would have mattered was whether Richard thought the adultery was true, or not. He could still have been devoted to his mother, either way. However, legitimacy was really important given the religious significance of coronation, in my understanding.

[@nbenefiel]

@@wodantheviking The story about Cecily Neville cheating on her husband is totally unsubstantiated. George was always coming up with crap like that. Edward was born 3 weeks early. So were all my kids.

[@nbenefiel]

All of the nonsense about Edward being illegitimate comes from George who was constantly trying to usurp his older brother’s throne. EdwardIV was born in Rouen, France, three weeks early. He was baptized immediately with no ceremony. To me, this indicates fear that the baby would not survive, not that he was illegitimate. Cecily Neville, unlike most noblewomen, accompanied her husband throughout his travels. She didn’t have to. Her devotion to Richard of York was well known. The idea that she would try to pass her firstborn son off as her husband’s, if he wasn’t, is ridiculous. English law, going back thousands of years, said that any child born to a married couple is legitimate.

[@wodantheviking]

@@nbenefiel Thank you for your insight. You have clearly studied this fascinating period in detail. My points were made as questions, with no pretence to conclusions. When there is controversy, it is a wonderful way to learn about a subject, speaking as a historical layman, who has read a number of books on the Plantagenets and the Medieval period.

[@tracyhodgkins7516]

The problem with Langley is that she’s just not neutral when it comes to Richard III. She’s so desperate, I was going to say determined, but desperate covers it better, but she is so desperate to convince people that Richard was basically a nice bloke really, who has been misunderstood by those nasty Tudor fanatics. Poor innocent, butter wouldn’t have melted in his angelic mouth Richard wouldn’t have swatted a fly, or rather had a fly swatted by an underling, let alone had two children murdered. He absolutely didn’t murder anyone, on account of being such a nice bloke, and she’ll scream and scream and scream until she’s sick if anyone dares to suggest he did, so there! It’s like her attitude when Richard’s remains were found. She wanted the box of bones covered with a flag long before they were identified as his. She literally went to pieces when they were talking about the injuries to the bones and how they would have been inflicted. Yes, she was very closely involved in the process of discovering the likely location of the remains, under one of the ‘R’s’ in CAR PARK of Leicester’s Social Services Department, but frankly it was stupid to want to cover the remains with a flag before it was established that the remains didn’t belong to some old monk who just happened to have a significant spinal curvature, like me by the way. As for her going to pieces, I just knew it was coming. Richard is this great idol for her and sorry, it’s clear that she’s besotted with him, so the thought of anyone inflicting pain on this poor, innocent, nice bloke with kind eyes, was too much for her. Langley just needs to learn neutrality. She so wants to exonerate Richard, she just sees ‘proof’ of his innocence everywhere, even in places where it isn’t and it’s making her come across not as an intelligent woman being guided by evidence and knowledge, but by emotion and desperation. The idea that Richard had allowed Edward V to just wander off into the sunset for years is just laughable really. It’s a good laugh I must admit, but it is a laugh.

[@lefantomer]

Oh, and you lot nattering away insisting on opinion alone and with no actual evidence that these murders took place as described in the totally bogus "confession" parroted by the execrable Henry VII, repeated and then shelved by SAINT!! Thomas More, parroted again by Shakespeare whose good excuse is that he was dependent on the claims of the "historians" he drew his storylines from. You, Tracy dear, are lazy and sarcastic because you can't be bothered to look at anything that might change your mind. Hope you do not claim to be a "historian".

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

It seems most likely to me that the restored Marquis had the expensive stained glass installed, to glorify his Yorkist connections, he had the right family connection, status and wealth for that. The Evans tomb could have been put in separately, by either Dorset’s or Evans’ agency. I don’t think there is any significance in Evans’ effigy “looking at the stained glass”, tomb effigies had to look somewhere, or have closed eyes, maybe he’s looking east for the Second Coming (I don’t have enough information on this). I think there are always plenty of square-jawed men about, that doesn’t make them kings just because some kings had them.

[@dirt0133]

Surprised he called the armor worn "chainmail". I'm pretty sure that word is a modern invention and that it would correctly simply have been called "Mail". Love your work Mr. Starkey, "Monarchy" helped to completely shift my historical interest from the Second World War to English medieval history. As an American I have much to be grateful for in the fascinating development of England's political institutions. Thank you for all you do.

[@redf7209]

Its all very good championing conclusions based on evidence but the professionals seem to either happily spout this practise at the lay persons while at the same time making remarkable extrapolations from evidence to say new things to sell their books or get funding or alternatively they ignore considerable evidence because they don't want to rock the boat of their little cliques. The answer seems to be to have conversations that don't lock people out of them and where even wrong notions can be brought up. This doesn't happen, possibly because professionals think they'd tire of fielding the same daft questions from people either too lazy to inform themselves first or where academia has failed to educate people

[@clivebaxter6354]

The Sherlock Holmes of the Tudor period!

[@jsschnc]

I'm an American who has long been a student of Britain's historical monarchy. I'm familiar with the Princes in the Tower story. Like so many others, I took the story to be accurate, especially with the discovery of the two children's remains some two hundred years later. Having seen the Philippa Langley documentary, I have to say it had all the earmarks of a sensationalized piece of TV journalism up to and including the way the barrister delivered his tantalizing conclusions by first making us think he was shooting Philippa down only to "admit" he was wrong. Meanwhile, is anyone asking the obvious question? Why haven't the children's skeletal remains now entombed in Westminster Abbey been DNA tested? Wouldn't that settle the question for once and for all?

[@frontenac5083]

This programme was utter rubbish. The woman proved nothing, she did a real disservice to genuine historians, and made a complete fool of herself in the process.

[@Geo_Babe]

The issue is - if they test those urn bones and they aren’t the boys (and that’s very likely as most of us believe the princes were dumped in the River Thames) then that’ll only amplify the mob philipa Langely and the R3S have conjured up… they’ll use it as evidence that “they are right”, when in reality, those nephews are long gone somewhere in the Thames… I believe

[@vanessadebrino7231]

What of the newly found documents pertaining to the princes? One perhaps from the very hand of Richard Duke of York the younger of the princes. What does Dr Starkey think of these discoveries ? Are you ready to finally say you may be wrong,? It's okay to admit to this once in a while you know 😊

[@lefantomer]

Oh, he and his ilk just brush it all off as "forgery!!" Something else that has come to light is that The Sainted King Henry VII had as much of Richard III's personal correspondence -- including letters exchanged with his wife -- destroyed by his foreign invader troops after his death. Henry was taking no chances. Neither is David Starkey and his ilk.

[@magsstewart5488]

Excellent. 👍

[@Gladtobemom]

Thank you.

[@melbonsmoore5786]

There isn't any volume for this video 😢 and yes i have double checked i have the volume turned up

[@annmolloy8600]

I bow to David Starkey’s vast knowledge of the Tudors, he has made it his life’s work to study that period it I do not support his ‘hasty’ denial of the greatness of the Yorkists. It seems even great historians must take sides. For my part, I see nothing great in the Tudors. They were despotic and self serving. Beginning with Edmund Tudor who took his 13 yo bride, Margaret Beaufort, and impregnated her with the future Henry VII. so traumatic was the birth it seems to have twisted this woman into an evil, ambitious matriarch. Finally, no Beaufort should have been allowed to ascend the throne, firstly because they were descended from the bastard line of John of Gaunt. Although Richard II did legitimise them it was stipulated they be barred from ascending the throne. Secondly, because the Tudors sprang from the illicit union of Katherine Valois, widow of Henry V and a servant in her dead husband’s retinue, Owen Tudor, a minor ‘lordling’.

[@breadsaltwine]

Both Phillipa's thank you for your blind support.

[@annmolloy8600]

@@breadsaltwine not blind support. I have been reading about this period since I was 9 yo and I am now 73 yo. No Internet or faulty Wikipedia in those days. Just the facts which I have elicited over the years.

[@taihastings3097]

My question is this, would a soldier and yeoman of the crown carry a jousting shield? Would he be considered enough of a Courtier - high ranking enough - to be included in the lists?

[@deniserowley8549]

She said she thought he had died in battle.

[@singingphysics9416]

The period between Christmas Day and New year (and into the new year too) is called 'Christmas' (at least, in our tradition)

[@FilmNerdy]

I am so fortunate and its nice to see David more stripped back, himself and rawr he. Whilst i do often challenge his political beliefs and do believe he can be theatrical to the point of being seen as rude all in all i like seeing this David at his most comfortable and relaxed. He is a brilliant mind in the world of history, i got hugely into Tudor history thanks to him, and it might be without his help its inspired me to start investigation into my Jack the Ripper suspect research albeit starting amateur (new year plan) whilst toeing in the social history related to it. I do actually like when he makes good political arguments, even when i disagree and isnt rude. But anyway back to history, i am so glad you have swiftly debunked this ourtages nonsense evidencing it and done with such virtuosity and execution.

[@robertpadfield1895]

I think you’ve overestimated the deductive powers of the police

[@margaretbanks8969]

David is there any translation of dominant mancini?

[@nbenefiel]

There is a relatively new translation of Mancini by Annette Carson.

[@victornewman9904]

The inability to contextualise is the badge of modern historians, the only mystery is their carefully-constructed, wilful stupidity. John Terraine would have called them "instant" historians (warped by their progressivism)!

[@fredericksaxton3991]

Thank you Sir, enjoyable video. I am afraid this nonsense is going to run and run. There will be tourists tumbling over them selves to see the 'proof' for themselves soon. People 'want' to believe this. P.S. Happy New Year to you all.

[@TS-1267]

... Hope There's Another Interesting Subject This Coming "Twixtmas" Mr. Starkey... Quietly Does It... Beautiful... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🖖

[@jimm7181]

The history of New Year is not the 1st of January, it is the 21st of March. The English New Year. It only changed in the eighteenth century , but our tax year is still 14 days after that day.

[@serenab17]

Except the Yorks were actually royal. Tudors were not.

[@cherrytraveller5915]

Henry vii wasn’t but everyone else after that was. Keep up Elizabeth of York was their mother and grandmother. They were royal through her

[@SusanFairclough-h5s]

You are digging a very big hole for yourself,Ricardian’s will cover the hole with concrete and put a capital W on the top!

[@Ruckduck72]

I can see David Starkey rolling his eyes at the latest documentary

[@Geo_Babe]

I read the book, and while it’s impressive her devotion to this man, it does not provide “the definitive answer” THATS the problem here, not her findings or her obsession with R3. It’s stating something as fact when that is just not true.

[@ItsSVO]

@@Geo_Babecurrently a lot more evidence to support him not killing the princes than there is that he did though. There will never be “definitive proof” unless there was footage of them being killed by somebody, which of course there isn’t. The evidence currently is far in favour for Richard not killing the princes until somebody provides evidence to the contrary.

[@AJShiningThreads]

I didn't like history until my sister gave me one of your books. You made history come alive.

[@ruthcollins2841]

I'm just glad Richard's bones were found ( with the DNA from Michael Ibsen) and at last a good warrior King was laid to rest properly in the correct manner.

[@uingaeoc3905]

'Good Warrior King' ? Who did he fight apart from his own family, the Barons and Henry?

[@JohnyG29]

...and child murderer.

[@tobiasbourne9073]

@@uingaeoc3905 You realise the whole Wars of the Roses were people fighting their family? What you've just argued sounds about as absurd as this John Evans story that you all make it seem to be.

[@uingaeoc3905]

@@tobiasbourne9073 How is your comment contrary to mine ?

[@suebursztynski2530]

@@tobiasbourne9073 Yes, it’s actually known as the Cousins’ War. We know this.

[@ChristChickAutistic]

Man, I understand having a crush on a dead guy, but Langley is taking this crap to new levels, lol! She did a good thing, helping to find Ricky3, but she really needs to reign in her obsessive fangirl self. Rulers, whether hereditary or elected, do whatever they can to protect their positions, way back when or today. Those 2 kids were in the way and a threat to the throne, it's sad as hell but it's true. Here's another thing, even if in the rare possibility Ricky3 didn't have the kiddos knocked off, they certainly would have been knocked off when Harry7 comes along. Either way, it doesn't matter, those kids still met a grisly end.

[@lefantomer]

"Obsessive fangirl"? About someone who has been supervising better organized re-examination of evidence and review of history than we've seen from the "experts" for 500 years, and all she gets from know-nothing onlookers like you is "fangirl"? The reason to get this gonzo "history" corrected is that it is inaccurate. Yapping away about how ""those2kidswereinthewayandathreat..." like a parrot is not history. Repeat, NOT. HISTORY. History requires evidence, not your intuitive guesses about the "kiddos". The way this period of history has been lazily and sloppily mischaracterized is disgraceful coming from people who should know what they are talking about. From you, it's expected.

[@richln9682]

I saw the article and thought that even if Richard HAD allowed family sentiment to get the better of his instincts and packed his nephew off to darkest Devon, it would have been highly unlikely that Henry VII would have allowed that circumstance to endure once he had assumed the crown, given Edward's more obvious claim to it..

[@kmaher1424]

Henry VII had the weaker claim to the throne and more reason to do away with competition

[@l.plantagenet2539]

Henry VII never once searched the Tower for the boys. It could have been because he knew they were alive. When any resistance would spring up he would quickly smash it down. Perkin Warbeck was, I believe, Richard, Duke of York. Perkin was back by his Paternal Aunt, Margaret Duchess of Burgundy. She believed him to be her nephew. I'm not sure of Edward's fate once he left the Tower. Once Henry stole the crown with the help of his mother, Margaret Beaufort, never did Elizabeth Wydeville or Henry ever blamed Richard for their deaths which tells me a lot. There's more viable subjectsike the Duke of Buckingham who committed treason and so did Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Wydeville. She would have never let her daughters stay at court while Richard was King if he had killed her sons.

[@LTPottenger]

It should not be dismissed that Henry did do away with them. He's the one writing the histories after all, and as someone pointed out already there is not as much reason for Richard to do it as many think.

[@Ruimas28]

@@LTPottenger Not enough reason? You people are delusional lol There is the very tinny reason that he was sitting the F* THRONE!!!! Which should have been his nephew lol And if his nephew was kept alive, he would be King. Which would be a small issue for Richard to be King also. Bit complicated to have 2 Kings at the same time ;) Pretty ilegal too by all contemporary standards lol And you might imagine the kid would want to caim his trone some day. Which would eventually have him asking dear uncle what are you doing sitting on my throne? :) Can you imagine the conversation? Dear uncle, did father not apoint you as my regent? Was I not supposed to be crowned? What have you been doing sitting the throne and calling yourself king? Can you explain yourself? :p

[@LTPottenger]

Yes, he's sitting on the throne. And commanding the army. Duh. How will they do anything from in his care? Obviously they won't. @@Ruimas28

[@Longshanks1690]

I would have thought anyone with a brain, never mind someone who knew anything about late medieval history, would put together that it would make no sense for Edward to be allowed to live out his life away from court in Devon but still be permitted to decorate his tomb in such a way that would point to his true origin. He’s dead at that point. Why not just write “Here lies Edward V,” and be done with it? Why do this needless puzzle solving exercise? Logically, it just makes no sense, and for historians who should really know better, it’s just an embarrassment.

[@heartofjesusdj]

Exactly. These half-baked “historians” ,laughably, attempt to judge and ascribe motives to someone who lived 600 years ago according to their modernist thinking. Richard almost certainly did away with the princes as he probably saw them as dangerous, bastards with no claim to the throne and hence a threat to the continuation of his nation and people. IMHO.

[@doctor_gibbo1392]

King Ed, firstly you're absolutely right, this 'theory' is clearly utter nonsense. Secondly, I see your name absolutely everywhere on KZbin. No matter where I go you are there commenting on it. We are it seems at the very least brothers in algorithm.

[@bighands69]

@@heartofjesusdj Or somebody else killed them so they would not become a problem. Who really knows at this point?

[@cplmpcocptcl6306]

@@bighands69 I’m selling some beautiful land on Mars. You seem like you would be interested. Let me know.

[@bighands69]

@@cplmpcocptcl6306 There is nothing wrong with what I have said. We have no way of really knowing exactly how it all went down. They probably were murdered by Richard or his followers either way we will never know.

[@mariemahler3881]

I had to watch this after seeing the Philippa Langley "documentary" about the Princes. I was surprised to see she calls herself a historian when a google search does not indicate that. I thought she was a writer not a historian. I, myself am not a historian but I do read. As an untrained person I found many flaws in the program and I cannot wait to see if you can provide a program on that documentary of bad history.

[@lefantomer]

Better take a look at her latest book, "The Princes in the Tower". The lady and her associate researchers have nailed the documentation indicating that the "princes" survived, were removed from the Tower, kept secure and relocated to the Netherlands. Sorry to disappoint all the But SHAKESPEARE!! and SAINT!! Thomas More!! loyalists but documentation from official original sources does not lie nearly as smoothly as bu++kissers at the court of Henry VII, enemies in late 15th c. France, or Tudor historians. Please excuse my sarcasm, but this has been a long, long trip.

[@frontenac5083]

*PROPAGANDA ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!*@@lefantomer

[@frontenac5083]

*Is that you, Philippa?* @@lefantomer

[@nealjroberts4050]

Well, she's an amateur historian so... Anyways while I agree RIII didn't deliberately aim to murder and disappear the boys - Buckingham or his wife are more likely - it did occur under his watch.

[@lefantomer]

@@nealjroberts4050 Read her book for crying out loud. She may be an "amateur" historian but she's doing better at this than a whole stream of "experts" who couldn't seem to get past the "Saint" and "The World's Greatest Playwright". Especially read the research that backs it up. Stop treating this as a whodunnit for a murder which it is increasingly obvious never occurred. The actual story is much more interesting.

[@ianjackson5150]

Absolutely fascinating. As soon as I heard about this story, I knew that Dr Starkey would mercilessly dissect it.

[@papapabs175]

I bet the R111 society love David 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@Ruckduck72]

@@papapabs175they probably howl when they hear his name 😂😂😂

[@julietaberner6353]

​@@Ruckduck72and were is all the evidence richard killed the Princes if they were killed! And yes i do support richard 111 Because he is not alive to answer back. You can't accuse someone without evidence.the so called bones in westminster abbey are not full Skeletons so i saw in one documentary but mixed with animal bones so how did they know they were childrens just jump to conclusions 😂

[@CTID]

David, do you doubt the whole story of the way Richard 111 body was found? I thought I detected a hint of something in your tone and now I'm fascinated...😲!!!!!!

[@lemartin3827]

I think he was just alluding to some of the more bizarre aspects of the story. Have you seen the Channel 4 King in the Car Park documentary? Some of it is unintentionally hilarious through the stark contrast between the Uni of Leicester archaeology team and the society. As well as the painted ‘R’ for ‘Reserved Parking Space’ being seen as a divine indication of the king’s whereabouts, the dressing of the forensics box in a heraldic cloth also springs to mind. That, and feeling there was a real possibility Langley might plant a kiss on the reconstructed head of Richard III. It was even presented by a guy from The Mighty Boosh, such little faith did the producers have in there being any merit in the dig. Made for mad viewing, I loved it.

[@Oliviawww164]

I am wondering if any Remains are in the crypt, what are the chances of DNA being taken?

[@Dude0000]

@@lemartin3827 R in the parking space meaning Rex?

[@Oliviawww164]

@@Dude0000 No, the remains in the Devon Church Crypt. Would there be a DNA link to the already confirmed test of Richard. Tenuous I know but Edward was allegedly"Johns" Father, Richards brother. Or are there any living descendents of the York line today.

[@Oliviawww164]

@@shaynechafin3558 I was fascinated with the KIng In the Carpark series. I thought DNA from Richard could be matched with DNA from the Devon remains (If any exist)

[@peterlowe6064]

Whatever we may think of Philippa Langley after the evidence was presented to Judge Rinder he agreed with the findings that the two brothers had not been murdered in the tower. Etc etc. Even David Starkey is not infallible.

[@Mr4skinhead]

You sir are a breath of fresh air in this dumbed down frivolous society.

[@jasonandlynnechambers3420]

Society is what you choose it to be. You can listen to Bach or Bieber, read Shakespeare or The Daily Mail, watch Casablanca or Mrs Browns' Boys. It is up to you.

[@Mr4skinhead]

@@jasonandlynnechambers3420 ,thats not society thats individualism.our present society is built around feelings not facts.

[@dfuher968]

@@jasonandlynnechambers3420 U probably shouldnt mention Shakespeare in this exact circumstance, since its his invented story of Richard III, written on behalf of his Tudor Queen, that claims, the princes were murdered and by Richard, and he gives a description of Richard, that is completely against comtemporary sources. Im not saying, Richard didnt kill the princes. But its ridiculous to claim so, when u cant even prove murder. Thats the essence of a conspiracy theory, to simply skip the entire investigation and, u know, facts and just state something for which there is no evidence. Now, the lack of evidence does not mean, it wasnt once there. But there is none available. So in this connection, while Shakespeare is an amazing writer and deservedly revered, he is also the purveyor of a fullblown conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. Langley's "theory" is just as blind, she clearly will do anything to clear Richards name. But equally those judging Richard without evidence are just as blind. Im open to the possibility, that Richard murdered his nephews. But there are so many other possibilities for the fate of the princes, so b4 I claim Richard or any1 else a murderer, I want murder proved.

[@Renfair333]

R3 Revisionists pre-unearthing: “He was MALIGNED! It’s all lies! He didn’t even have a hunchback!” **Skeleton unearthed showing extreme scoliosis** “It’s him! You can tell by the hunchback!!!”

[@davidnorman7715]

Haha so unbelievably true, even horrible history's were saying this... All of them wrong

[@renshiwu305]

Kyphosis, a Quasimodo-style hunched back, and scoliosis, Richard III's malady, are not the same thing.

[@nicoleroth3127]

Scoliosis is an altogether different thing than kyphosis. Both Shakespeare and his sources as well as the Ricardians were wrong on that one. Though one could say the latter were closer to the truth, because scoliosis, other than kyphosis, can be fairly easily hidden underneath clothing with only a slight assymetry of the shoulders and torso. In a living, moving person, it's surprisingly difficult to pick up on it. Considering that scoliosis is a fairly common condition, all of us might even know someone who's got it without ever having noticed. And yes, that's actually speaking from personal experience. That said, in Richard's case, his uneven shoulders were picked up on, but it doesn't seem to have been a particularely prominent feature, which an actual hump would have been.

[@taniaearle4457]

Hahaha

[@bordersforbritain1295]

Hunchback is a condition called kyphosis. He wasn't a hunchback.

[@jennilou100]

I read this yesterday in the Telegraph at breakfast. After a burst of laughter, I did consider leaving a comment, but decided, it wasn't worth my time. I expect it is due to a lack of real news, that the Telegraph decided to print such garbage. I am sure David Starkey will reply to it far better than I could. What happened to hard evidence? Blown away in the Covid wind I expect.

[@mkkravist11]

Just shows how poor history is portrayed these days- and the ‘cancelled’ Prof Starkey is left to put things right from the sidelines. I’m sure some of these modern day ‘historians’ don’t even have a GCSE in history, and if so, have only todays ‘sanitised’ versions.

[@richardpentelow655]

Not from the sidelines as far as I am concerned.

[@RogerJJSmith]

Langley has no academic history qualifications as far as I can discern.

[@Eudaimonia88]

@@RogerJJSmith Langley is a lowbrow screenwriter who thinks she is now a bona fide historian. A bit like Meghan Markle thinking she is royal!

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@Eudaimonia88 Yet she achieved more than all academic historians together.

[@blackcat2628zd]

This is a very snobbish view. Having GCSE in history doesn´t make you good historian and vice versa. I also have no idea what you mean by "how poor history is portrayed these days". Just pick the right books!

[@joyoung2483]

Contemporary accounts aside, everything Elizabeth Woodville did after her sons were taken to the Tower indicated that she believed they were both dead.

[@nicoleroth3127]

And how she behaved once she came out of sanctuary would suggest she then believed them dead no longer, or at least not murdered. Why else would she not try and get her remaining children out of the country but instead hand them over to Richard? Or write to her oldest son from her first marriage, then in France, to return to England, assuring him that Richard wouldn't do him any harm? - A request, Thomas Grey tried to follow, only to be intercepted on his way to England by Henry and his men and hauled back, while Richard did exempt him from the genral attainder he put out on the other people gathering around Henry Tudor, indictaing that he intended to keep his word, just as Elizabeth Woodville had written. Yes, she could have been pressured into giving her children into Richard's care, but as with many things, seeing that we don't have any actual proof, there remains doubt as to what has happened to her sons. The thing is, that almost every piece of information we've got, can be read in whichever way we want depending on our own suppositions and preconceptions, which is exactly why there is a discussion to begin with.

[@godders778]

Do you have any examples to back up your assertion?

[@Happyheretic2308]

If you believed your sons had been killed, why on God's green earth would you have come out of Sanctuary and gone back to Court?? I'm no fan of the Woodville, but it cannot be said that she was heartless. Don't forget she was shut away in Bermondsey Priory.

[@lalaholland5929]

I hope you don't mind my asking why Edward's brother was not given the title king as well? Is it because one assumes the murders and it really is a moot point?

[@katakauchi]

Than maybe you can tell Everyone why she never accused Richard of their murders especially after he was killed at Bosworth ?. Why did she put her daughters who were valuable politically in Richards custody ? . When Henry hosted the Irish Kings at a dinner 10 years after Stoke Field he presented Lambert Simmel to them as the boy they crowned in Dublin . None of the lords recognized him as the boy they crowned ? . Maybe you know why ? . Why did Henry strip Elizabeth Woodville of her money and titles after the battle of Stoke Field ? .

[@kellicoffman8440]

Thank you David Starkey for cutting through the bologna and telling the correct history

[@markd1516]

'The correct history' 🤣🤣🤣

[@kellicoffman8440]

@@markd1516 I know history is only accurate to a point mr starkey does seem to present well researched conclusions

[@uingaeoc3905]

What amused me about Ms Langley was she spent her whole career in the 'defence' of RIII as 'not a hunch back' and as soon as the (admittedly sterling work she did in locating RIII's body) archaeologists discovered a skeleton with its major deformed spine she immediately gasped "aahh, ... it's Richard!".

[@ogukuo97]

Yes and no. When she first saw the skeleton, she was shocked, and there was a moment of confusion when she said something like "that's a major curvature". She wants the skeleton to be Richard III and yet she could not reconcile it with the major deformation. It was a moment of cognitive dissonance.

[@georgemello]

Well said.

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

Yes, it was a good news/bad news moment for her, wasn't it!

[@DazzaS83]

It made her question if the hunchback was true, was everything else. The mad bone lady went full mourning at the reburial, I thought she was going to dive in the grave with him.

[@shirleylane131]

But does a twisted spine automatically mean he had a hunch🤷‍♀️

[@The_Laughing_Cavalier]

I have it on good authority that Edward V actually escaped to Argentina with Adolf Hitler and Lord Lucan and is currently living there under an assumed name.

[@joanhuffman2166]

LOL

[@Sun_Flower1]

LOL

[@pinklady3885]

Ignorant troll.

[@elainebutterworth8051]

@@maryearll3359 So very superior.

[@alanlawson4180]

Riding on Shergar, no doubt!

[@alisongodden4500]

Thank you David Starkey. I wish you had been my history teacher. I had a bad education in the 1970's as I am dislecix and only became interested in history in the 1990's when I started working in a care home, talking to older people about world war 2. Thank you again.

[@adlam97531]

It appears that you have to have a position and you bend the facts to fit that narrative . You do not follow this new age idea thankfully.I recently spoke to a curator ( who has since left) of a museum who complained (about the previous curator) that it represented only one persons view on the items on display. I had to try and point out that when they are backed up by facts then it is no longer one persons view but history. He could not see this and things should be interpreted even if it was not backed up with facts . There is your problem today .

[@adlam97531]

@@andrewdibb6334 start with yourself first then you can tell others what to do .

[@PhilippaBeale]

@@adlam97531 People love conspiracy theories and there are so many about the Princes in the Tower, Richard lll and Edward ll. One can put many different constructions on Mancini’s narrative, which makes it perfect for reinterpretation by many who love a mystery. I have heard so many theories about Edward V and his brother that I have now lost count. There is one theory that says the ‘doctor’ did it! Argenton being a a Tudor Dr.Shipman, killing his young patients, including Prince Arthur. Both my parents coming from Yorkshire had many ideas and myths about Richard lll but were always for the “white rose”, even in the 1960s. I really enjoy your talks.

[@HerbertDuckshort]

Sadly these days in any contest at The Telegraph between journalism and clickbait the latter always triumphs.

[@steveparadis2978]

As usual, the actual history is more interesting and a better story than the made-up stories. Someone like John Evans is the real stuff of history, the person on the edge of interesting events--picking a side and hoping it wins, and riding out the losses when they don't.

[@MrAdrianOldfield]

Love this guy, no one makes history so compelling and engaging

[@nicoleroth3127]

And few are so biased and blinded by their own opinion. I had really hoped for a decent argument that takes the opinions of the opposite side seriously and deals with them accordingly and not just discards them as utter rubbish from the get-go. The title alone should've warned me, I guess, because in the end, we're presented with a new theory, not an actual conspiracy. Capital difference! But goodness, that man seemed personally offended for whatever reason. No, not that I buy into this new theory despite my Ricardian views and I wholeheartedly agree with many of his conclusions, but he should have admitted that what we know is that we don't really know anything and that basically everything regarding this topic is just a matter of interpreting the little information we have. And seriously, the surviving information can be interpreted either way, because it is exasperatingly vague to the point where it can hardly be called information at all. That's why there is a debate to begin with. Yet here his own interpretation of the available info is presented as definitive fact that can only be interpreted in one way - his, which is simply incorrect. I, personally, admit to being biased, so at least I'm honest about it, but so is everybody else, be it the Traditionalists or the Ricardians. Regardless, in the end, I am fully aware that I might be completely wrong about my interpretation of what might be the truth of the matter and that's perfectly fine. We live and we learn, and perhaps one day we'll find out what happened to these two boys, perhaps not. But without any definitive proof that deserves to be called such, we're all in the same boat whether we like it or not, unfortunately rowing in opposite directions and consequently going around in circles. Have a happy new year.

[@gazza2933]

Just out of step with everyone else!

[@MrAdrianOldfield]

@@gazza2933 Not sure I’d agree with that

[@JohnyG29]

@@nicoleroth3127 Because the argument of the "opposite side" is, to be honest, nonsense.

[@nicoleroth3127]

@@JohnyG29 Some arguments might appear nonsensical and could be wrong, sure, but here's the thing: sometimes truth is weirder than fiction, so these theories shouldn't be cast aside just like that. Besides, who's the judge on what's nonsense and what not? It could boil down to it being ones own bias. In short, people have discarded theories they thought nonsensical throughout history only for them being accepted as accurate later on. Prime example is the evolutionary theory and the ridicule Charles Darwin faced by contemporaries. Only because one thinks a theory to be utter nonsense, doesn't mean one shouldn't look into it, if only to debunk it with actual facts. Since in this case, there's a lack of evidence for either viewpoint to come up with definitv proof, they'll have to stand as they are for the time being. Both sides have some good points and I by no means support all of the Ricardian theories after looking into them, and the one addressed in this video is one of them, because the counter-arguments are reasonable and strong. So yeah, in that instance I'm with you for the time being. Anyway, perhaps in the future, we'll find out more and will get some answers. - And yes, I know my opinions could be wrong, but that's life and I'm rather wrong on occasion, than close my mind and just blindly follow the masses.

[@Horizon344]

The difference between an actual Medievalist & enthusiastic amateurs is apparent here. (Those "deer" look more like giraffes to me - maybe it's the tomb of Tarzan, King of the Jungle!).

[@HistoryLover1550]

Ever since the 6th grade Starkey has been a historian whom I have held great admiration for, he truly knows how to delve deep into the periods he examines with such passion and introspection that draws you in. Richard III in contrast to the propaganda and fictional representations in reality was by no means a power-grasping psychopath. Yet for dynastic reasons, would have had a motive to eliminate his "illegitimate" nephews if the Archer of Rouen theory was catalyst for it. There's always the possibility Henry VII could have been the perpetrator (if not Buckingham). Plus there is James Tyrel's "confession " of acting on Richard's orders, which Thomas Moore drew on for his own writings about king Richard. Still, I find Starkey's examination of this conspiracy nonetheless insightful and well researched based on what is known, fragmentary and speculative the evidence is. Moreover, a new reexamination of the alleged skeletons of the "princes" I am really eager to know the truth behind, even if they do not answer all the longstanding questions that have loomed over the mystery and remain shadowy.

[@amc5966]

Starkey's "bad history" hasn't aged well based on him taking the piss out of Phillipa Langley both finding Richard III and now her recent documentary dispelling the killing of the two young Princes in the Tower. Must be hard to swallow for Starkey and his ilk for just belting out the status quo for decades without ever considering to challenge it. Embarrassed for him and he should publicly apologise to Phillipa.

[@elainehague12]

I read the article after watching this, and to be honest, I thought to myself, would medieval people even have the mindset to leave 'da vinci ' style clues. Of course, common sense prevails. I think Ms Langley wants so badly for her hero to be vindicated that she will see things that are not there. I think the fact that the church 'in the middle of nowhere ' decked out in Yorkist regalia is simply because it is on Thomas Grey"s land, that's it. Maybe he just wanted to build a shrine to his lost brother. If they sent one brother to exile, why not the other? I noticed in all of their giddy excitement, they forget to mention what happened to Richard, his brother.Does that mean that the two men responsible for their murder were misquoted? Wasn't it James Tyrill? Didn't he make a 'death bed' confession that even Thomas More wrote about? It may be an unpopular opinion, but I think it should be a case now of finding out the identity of the skeletons in the grave Charles II created for the Princes/ skeletons that were found. We need to know, again, I may be out of turn or sound offensive and I don't mean to be, but I think part of the reason that our late Queen, God rest her soul, didn't want their identity confirmed is because it would bring up the whole debate of succession...it just would. There's a chance she may have just wanted to leave them at peace. However, I believe there is another reason. As far as this article and as far as the Richard III society goes? I think they mean well, but they need to stop looking for things that are not there. If you have to look for 'clues' a king left behind, he wasn't a king to start with. Ms. Langley has got a hero complex for Richard that a lot of us don't, and while she may think she knows his mind and what he did or didn't do, the sources say otherwise.

[@lefantomer]

It wasn't a "death bed" confession. He was scheduled to be beheaded. Probably given the choice between that and drawing and quartering, or threats made about his family. And of course his 'co-murderer", Dighton, was left free to spread the story Henry wanted to prevail. No written confession, of course. Please read Langley's book. The documentation speaks for itself. But for those who cannot bear to think that SAINT Thomas More or The Greatest Playwright Who Ever Lived could have gotten some facts wrong will never accept mere research.

[@elainehague12]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me based on what I said, so, I will clarify things for you. Reread what I said about James Tyrell and Thomas More, it was meant as sarcasm, As a historian that is actively studying history, yes, I am actually very interested in research, facts and discoveries. Hence watching this wonderful video by Sir David Starkey, who is also only interested in the facts and source material, which is why I've read many of his books. You can take what he says to the bank. I wouldn't have any desire in reading anything that Ms. Langly has written about Richard III. I've heard enough of her opinion on him on T.V, so I don't feel the need to read it. She has too much bias and an active imagination for me, maybe she should try fiction novels? I have plenty of books on Richard III by historians that 1. Rely on facts and sources, 2. Are not biased towards him and 3. Recommended by other Authors and Professional Historians like Tracy Borman, professor Suzanne Lipscombe and Dan Jones. As you so kindly recommended me a 'book', i would recommend you a couple of Richardian books from my own collection that I've really enjoyed reading: Alison Weir-Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. Richard III- Charles Ross. which is considered by a fair few professor's to be the leading biography of Richard in the field. Finally, don't make assumptions about what people say. Disagree or are confused? Ask for clarification. That's how we do it in academic circles. 😊

[@lefantomer]

@@elainehague12 Just read the book if you are so respectful of research. What do you mean you "don't need to read it" because of "what she said on tv". Please be serious. "Saint" Thomas More and William Shakespeare are not "research". Since when is Alison Weir a "Ricardian"? Charles Ross is a mixed bag. And no I am not confused but you are obviously biased. If you honestly respect research using primary sources -- NOT More and Shakespeare and Tudor hacks -- then please do read the new Langley book and shell out for the Buc. This ridiculous. An entire albeit brief part of English history has been distorted because of the known phenomenon of many people taking fictional accounts as more reliable than facts. And take your own advice and don't make assumptions.

[@mpblack2127]

Thank you! I studied history in college and if you examine enough sources you can easily get the hang of knowing bias sources.

[@lefantomer]

@@elainehague12 Well, I confess that I don't have a degree in "history" specifically. My masters from Harvard -- used to be proud of that once! -- is in classical civ. So I suppose that doesn't count. The Tyrell tale gets stranger by the day. It occurs to me that, since apparently Henry's disclosure of the "confession" was given post-execution of the alleged perpetrator, the latter may have had no idea that he "confessed" at all. That's is new evidence which brings up some interesting questions about Tyrell, but since you have decided that nothing connected with Ms. Langley can have any value I won't waste my time or yours. Something that has been missing in this discussion generally is the fact that the massive overlay of glorious Shakespearean-enriched villainy is that the fact -- it has been said that "there is more labor and pains in the government of a kingdom than pleasure or delight, especially to the prince who would use the kingly authority and royal office as it ought to be used" -- that a concern with encouraging good government is almost always a secondary, if that high, aim of any given scoundrel angling to seize the throne for his own glory, that of his clan, or the satisfaction of his frustrated mother's ambitions, and it might be useful to pay more attention to an instance, however brief, in which such was the case.

[@everwake2689]

The idea of Edward living in exile is ludicrous. This was no Edgar Ætheling/William the Conqueror scenario. Richard's enemies would have swarmed to him to use as a pretense for war. Richard would have certainly been aware of that possibility. Sadly, Edward likely wouldn't have survived the ascension of the Tudors, either.

[@flanamom]

Coffee and a new Dr. Starkey video, what a grand way to start my day!

[@gordonclarkson2672]

This silly theory, brilliantly debunked here, reminds me of the "Paul is dead" rumour regarding Paul McCartney, which appeared in the 1960s. Insane.

[@Bob.W.]

I recall one of those 50s movies where the followers of a Welsh football club playing in one of your cups pulled into a station in London. A lady's voice came over the loudspeaker saying "Will a Mr. Evans report to the information kiosk" (or something like that), and the entire trainload of passengers rushed the kiosk.

[@waynehieatt5962]

Did he just say the idea of Richard not murdering the princes was silly? If so, David's my new hero, I've never heard a historian say that before, but always beleived it.

[@cherrytraveller5915]

Me too. It annoys me as their excuse for why Richard wouldn’t kill his nephews are weak. He killed Buckingham. Hastings, Anthony River, Richard Grey. He also participated in the murder of Henry vi. The excuses are pathetic

[@tobiasbourne9073]

@@cherrytraveller5915 Nor do you have any concrete evidence that he murdered them. Your excuses are also quite pathetic. Firstly, what was the point of mentioning Buckimghams execution? He created a full blown rebellion, obviously he would be executed. Anthony Woodville was clearly undermining and planning to go against Richard. Henry VIs murder was Edward IVs doing. I dont agree with Hastings execution however. Your argument there is very weak my friend...

[@margarettaft2944]

You forget Edward 5 became king the minute his father Edward 4 died. The king is dead long live the next king. Edward 5 was king no need for a proclamation, no need for a coronation .

[@Geo_Babe]

YEP!!! ❤❤

[@mikev4621]

@@cherrytraveller5915 And his brother George if Shakespeare was correct

[@annmolloy8600]

I have to disagree. Just because you have scoliosis does not mean you are a hunchback which is quite a different thing. Princess Eugenie had scoliosis but I never heard anyone describe her as a hunchback and in all the photos of her as a child before having the operation when she was 12, her condition was not visible. There is a person in England who has a very similar condition to Richard III and he doesn’t have a hunchback either.

[@dburgd99]

They have the skeleton/remains I believe.

[@ruthcollins2841]

I have Thoracic Scoliosis too and am not deformed but have pain in that area.

[@nicoleroth3127]

@@dburgd99 Yes, which showed Richard had scoliosis not kyphosis. Scoliosis even in pretty severe cases, can be quite easy to hide underneath clothing, depending somewhat on where the curve is located. In Richard's case, the only visible indication of it underneath his high-status clothing seems to have been that his right shoulder was higher than the left. In a living person, with moving around, that's not as easy to detect as one might think. Kyphosis of any severity comparable to Richard's scoliosis, on the other hand, is impossible to hide underneath any kind of clothes.

[@user-np7dv2rx4c]

@@dburgd99 Richard II did have scoliosis but he was not a hunchback. One shoulder was higher than the other.