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!

[@AJShiningThreads]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@katharper655]

Yes, she most certainly DID. Some people, after reading my undoubtedly angrily-toned comments, might be surprised to read my admission that, while I do believe Ms. Langley has a deeply-spiritual connection to the memory of Richard III, and respect that fact, I bristle like a hedgehog at the nastiness being said about William Shakespeare. I would like to make this perfectly clear: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do I think William Shakespeare is an Historian. I have NEVER said nor implied that he was. I've said that his "Historically-based" plays are written from the position of a man who based his plays upon the historical info available to him. He described Richard as he did because that was the best available information at the time.

[@Quinefan]

@@katharper655 Nothing to do with any incentive(s) he might have had (positive or negative) to flatter, and propagandise for, the Tudor Elizabeth I, then, Kat.....?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Oliviawww164]

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

[@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.

[@nancymoore1240]

​@@ItsSVO There is actually NO evidence that he did not kill the boys, as you cannot prove a negative. But there is very little evidence that he DID kill the boys, except for 1) a very strong motive and a willingness to kill for the throne. He executed the men who were just escorting EdwardV from Ludlow to London when he grabbed Edward. 2) hearsay from very old documents, written years later, by someone who heard it second hand. 3) the boys were in Richard's care. Yet he said nothing nor launched an investigation when they disappeared. Doesnt prove R3 had it done. He is just the likliest suspect. There was more than one Pretender claiming to be one of the boys. With no real evidence of how they escaped the heavily guarded Tower, they had various stories about it and about where they lived. It is more suggestive that Henry VII had a lot of powerful enemies who would go to any length to boot him off the throne. Just bec someone wrote something down centuries ago doesnt make it true. We now know that all the " evidence" against Anne Boylen was completly fabricated. The evidence for the pretenders is equally thin. But ppl often believe what they want to believe. Even if the skeltons in the urn do turn out to have been theboys, it won't mean R3 had them killed. It could have been a Thomas a Beckett thing or someone else who wanted to smear R3....knowing everyone would blame him.But there is no real evidence of that either. The Richardians would do better to look at Richard's enemies and his huge supporters. Than pinning their hopes on the evidence- free multiple pretenders theories. I dont have a horse in the race. I just like debating history., logically.

[@srb1346]

@@ItsSVO Richard had his nephew declared to be illegitimate then deposed him, deposed kings in English history rarely lived long look at Edward II and Richard II.

[@ItsSVO]

@ Richard was offered the throne by the three estates of the realm on the grounds that his elder brother, Edward IV, had committed bigamy, making Edward's children by Elizabeth Widville illegitimate. So no, Richard didn’t.

[@elbaz860]

Thank you Dr Starkey. How I wish I could remember half that of which you so eloquently inform us. Always fascinating and intriguing.

[@treble20]

It's an opinion. Be better if King Charles would agree to have the child skeletons in Westminster Abbey DNA tested and it might put the story to bed once and for all.

[@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.

[@ACD54]

Priceless beginning to your talk! Thank you so much for putting things in context so eloquently.

[@Emmaser]

Your videos are amazing! I so look forward to each one. Thank you!

[@sparkleypegs8350]

I am so glad you have this channel David. You are awesome!

[@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 😂

[@ruthbashford3176]

@@julietaberner6353 Why were the brothers in the Tower and where did they go? I understand Richard just seized the throne and never spoke of his nephews again. Those bones of two young boys found in 1674 are pretty conclusive proof they are the princes in my opinion.

[@FaithRomero-ms5kq]

​@@ruthbashford3176 Until they are DNA ,tested ,nobody can say they are , If Richard had not been DNA tested ,also the living relatives being alive today ,we know the two people tested are the last of that line , Meaning it would of been a skeleton of an unknown person with scoliosis, could not say 100% The fact they won't let them be DNA tested is strange

[@peterstephens6700]

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

[@WILKSVILLE]

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

[@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.

[@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🤷‍♀️

[@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.

[@catbialcovsky5571]

😂😂😂

[@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

[@flanamom]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@judithodlin]

It is never too late to learn especially now that I have found the best lecturer in history. David Starkey delivers much more than "packets of dates". Thankyou.

[@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.

[@colincurwood]

As I am an avid photographer of churches and Devonian history, thank you Dr Starkey. I will be visiting next weekend.

[@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 ? .

[@HerbertDuckshort]

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

[@HelenWhite-z9d]

I live in Leicester and remember a time about 1968 when I was about 7 , mum and I was walking past the car park where king Richard was found, she stopped outside the car park and told me he was buried there and the fascinating story surrounding it, I asked how she knew and she said word of mouth

[@lisawilliams7836]

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

[@36cmarti]

Thankyou Dr. Starkey, I enjoyed this with a nice glass of Shiraz and home made cookies. I posted a link to this in the comments to the Telegraph piece so that other readers of the telegraph can see this. Please keep up the good work, I love the KZbin posts, just you speaking to camera, someone who knows and loves their subject. Keep up the good work.

[@nonoyorbusness]

Not a fine chianti and fava beans?

[@36cmarti]

@@nonoyorbusness That's tonight

[@nonoyorbusness]

@@36cmarti Boris burgers would be nice.

[@GeorgeAlexopoulos-o7w]

"Historians" like Starkey are repeating the LIES and PROPAGANDA of the Tudor USERPERS!! The Tudors had a BIGGER MOTIVE to kill the little princes!! The LEGITIMATE King was RICHARD IIII and the LEGITIMATE DYNASTY was the House of YORK!!

[@LyndaPrice-m6f]

Many thanks! What an interesting presentation. Dr. Starkey, you never disappoint!👏🏻

[@JaneEasterbrook-bn3ux]

They just can't see Richard guilty of anything!!!

[@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.

[@desstanbridge8283]

Thoroughly interesting..thank you for fleshing out a fascinating topic!!❤

[@paulholloway1447]

Love your history talks , simply great

[@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

[@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!

[@samcooper6714]

Superb critique! Such a joy to listen Dr. Starky, a man of brilliance shining out above a mire of mediocrity

[@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.

[@GeorgeAlexopoulos-o7w]

"Historians" like Starkey are repeating the LIES and PROPAGANDA of the Tudor USERPERS!! The Tudors had a BIGGER MOTIVE to kill the little princes!! The LEGITIMATE King was RICHARD IIII and the LEGITIMATE DYNASTY was the House of YORK!!

[@csnelling4]

Very interesting David , thank you . A very Happy New Year to you.

[@fiachramaccana280]

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

[@BlessYourHeart254]

I’m glad you’re calling this out-I wasn’t sure what’s been up with the “Ricardian” Richard III rehab movement 🤦‍♀️

[@CynthiaBoener]

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

[@kevindowling9270]

Thankyou so much David I really enjoy listening to you

[@olwens1368]

I'm SO glad you have covered this. I thought it was just me.

[@FinarfinNoldorin]

I love your lesson in history Mr Starkey. Thank you so much. :)

[@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.

[@Fenristhegreat]

Brilliant, thank you so much for this. My personal favourite bit was explaining the abbreviation of the letter 'n', I've seen that many times on heraldic shields and had no idea what it represented.

[@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).

[@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!

[@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)

[@johnlonie7899]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@peterwebb8732]

​@@lefantomer"History" is the story we tell ourselves to make sense of disconnected facts. The strongest evidence we have is that the Princes were murdered while in the custody of R3. Everything else appears to be of doubtful reliability or pure speculation. No, nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but some things are more probable than others. .....

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@sarahmccrone4357]

Some sensible talk. Thankyou David.

[@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.

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

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

[@DneilB007]

Something that everyone forgets about is that the first documented occasion of the English “sweating sickness” is the autumn of Henry VII’s ascension to the throne, in London. However, one of the reasons that was given by Lord Stanley for not quickly joining the fight at Bosworth is that he was ill with “the sweating sickness”, so we know that it was circulating before Bosworth. If Edward died of the sweating sickness while under Richard’s care, no one is going to believe that he was not poisoned (or otherwise killed) by Richard. So it makes sense for Richard not to publicize the death. If Edward died of the sweating sickness, then it makes sense for Elizabeth to leave the abbey & to trust Richard with her daughters. And, if Edward died from the sweating sickness, it makes sense that no official (or quasi-official) source accuses him of killing the princes until a generation has passed and there would be few people who might have known otherwise. And that’s the big hurdle for the “Richard killed them” crowd. There was one account of a rumour that he might have been killed, but no history was written that made the claim until decades later. Why? The other option that also addresses all of the problems with both the “Richard is guilty” and the “Richard is innocent” hypotheses (noted above, and also mentioned by other commenters below), is that Edward committed suicide. Again, who would believe Richard hadn’t killed him, and if it became public knowledge that the prince killed himself, that would have the potential effect of reinforcing the already existing taint of insanity that plagued the Plantagenets. And if the Plantagenets had “tainted blood”, then would the Tudor bloodline be tainted with madness as well (speaking from a medieval perspective of course)? Again, the best course of action for Henry VII is to simply try to ignore the issue for as long as possible, and then to blame everything on one evil scapegoat. I feel that these are the two best explanations for what happened to Edward, simply because they, alone among the many theories, don’t require people who were known to be intelligent to make multiple incredibly stupid decisions.

[@GeorgeAlexopoulos-o7w]

GREAT possibilities!!

[@kingfuzzy2]

As a Catholic twixmass really confuses me because our Christmas season lasts for 80 days until the coming of the Wisemen and additionally the secular 12 days of Christmas are also a thing so what crazy person thought up twixmass. Also it would be neat to see a video on the recent diary discovery that she'd light on one of the princes in the towers fates.

[@kevin-jg5nq]

David - I just started watching the videos recently but I find them very compelling. You bring these topics to life. Do you have a video on the topic of Henry VII ?

[@LindaLinda80Linda]

Absolutely love The Mail. And they do provide entertaining reading if not always well-researched. The world needs a few laughs.

[@adelecurry7405]

I like your summing up - 'An imaginative coincidence'.

[@clairhughes2979]

Very much enjoyed this detailed video. Thankyou

[@leanie5234]

I have enormous respect for this wonderful man...and I love his sense of humour.

[@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

[@philipmadden7013]

The point about the 'n' is well noted. Even in the early modern period shorthand was widely used on the "minnims" that is letters like m, n, i, u, especially when they appear together (as they often do).

[@heliotropezzz333]

In the Leicester car park Richard III's body was found under the R for Reserved (parking space).

[@cnursery]

Whilst I admit to knowing nothing about the "conspiracy" surrounding John Evans, Starkey does appear to be somewhat scathing of Philippa Langley. Whilst I have always admired Starkey's approach as a historian, Philippa Langley, in first finding Richard III's body and now discovering written evidence to confirm the Princes were not murdered in the Tower by their uncle, has actually done far more for British History than he has. In the words of my old college motto: "Time Tries the Truth in Everything".

[@stephenwalker7870]

One of the reasons I love history so much is because of people like you David ..love your view on this but one thing it gets historians aroused that can't be all bad to debate ..you Simon Schama and Ben Cruickshanks my favourite Historians ...if only I had teachers like you people when I was younger Merry Christmas and Best of wishes for the year to come

[@Fairyfink]

Oh joy! A thorough debunking of some of the shoddiest historical investigation I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. Thank you, Mr Starkey. Much appreciated.

[@philsooty61]

Once again another brilliant explanation of history !

[@cecil64]

A brilliant debunking of the possibility of Edward V living a quiet life in Devon in the 15th-16th Century. One thing I learned from it was that Margaret Countess of Salisbury and other Yorkists were killed not because they were Yorkists but because they opposed the Reformation. It makes a great deal of sense the more I think about it as King Henry VIII was the son of a Yorkist mother and previous kings from Edward IV to Richard III had married members of the Lancastrian house in order to bring the Wars of the Roses to a peaceful end. So thank you Dr Starkey for enlightening me regarding this

[@ruthcollins2841]

Reformation started 1517 after Martin Luther did his 95 Thesis!

[@carinafourie9119]

Henry VIII had Buckingham executed long before the reformation. It was never about religion, it was about Henry’s paranoia and the Tudor legacy of never quite being secure on a crown won at Bosworth but held by a very flimsy genetic claim.

[@nbenefiel]

Richard married Anne Neville. The Neville’s were Yorkists. Elizabeth Woodville’s first husband was a Lancastrian.

[@evelynzak8454]

Thank you so much for this superb lecture!

[@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.

[@andrewbarrett7207]

I'm happy to have watched lots of these videos on Dr. Starkey's new You Tube channel. TV's loss is their gain. As far as this one is concerned, what can I say except that this isn't just any old takedown, it's a David Starkey takedown. A slap in the face of those who prioritise emotion and narrative over cold hard logic. Delightful.

[@danielplantagenet8385]

David is just brilliant! X

[@Dfoto679]

I agree with you 100% that the twins in the tower were murdered and I appreciate your evidence. All the work that you put into these episodes are just wonderful.

[@idontwantachannel7542]

Shield is misspelled "shied" twice. If the "newspaper" can't afford a copyeditor, we can't expect much in the way of historical accuracy.

[@steveparadis2978]

Obviously a DELIBERATE misspell to signal to generations 500 years in the future that (insert nutcase theory HERE.)

[@Vintagevanessa99]

have a wonderful 2022 . thankyou

[@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

[@bonusgolden12]

Always so grateful to be able to hear Dr. Starkey!

[@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

[@JayArgonauts]

So thankful we have this excellent channel to turn to for clear headed, academic fact rather than romantic flights of fancy.

[@ekmad]

Fantastic video. I do love a good historical "debunking". One question is that if this former soldier with close ties to the Yorkist court was wealthy enough to afford the chapel and stained glass then why settle for his depiction in chainmail and not plate? Seems like an odd thing to compromise on.

[@HeavensGremlin]

He was a yeoman, not a knight.

[@shawroberts5149]

I find it troubling that Langley is so strongly linked with the discovery of Richard III body. There was and still is a huge stone in situ denoting Greyfriars as the site of Richard's burial. She found what was not lost!!!

[@brightonduder]

Really enjoying your channel, Dr Starkey. I'm not on board with your views on mandatory vaccinations. BUT - in this sane corner of YT, it is possible to disagree with your fellow travelers on some things in a civilised fashion. On most other things I think we are completely aligned Keep up the good work, sir! And a very happy new year to you and yours xxx

[@nancymoore1240]

Dr Starkey is terrific. I have even more respect for him now that I see he values Science over emotional thinking and conspiracy theories.

[@partlycloudy3519]

I really wish you would put up the pics or lettering you are talking about . We cant see what you are looking at !

[@patavinity1262]

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

[@ronadkins287]

Mr. Starkey thank you so much for clarifying the GUILT of King Richard lII, I’m in America and I thought he was guilty of murdering his Nephews !!!

[@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.

[@mikev4621]

Great presentation

[@mickymantle3233]

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

[@josephstevano5905]

Brilliant analysis! Thank you!

[@steveosullivan5262]

I think well all is said and done, Richard III got a raw deal. Not that he wasn't ruthless, he was indeed a warrior and a man of his time. I say it was his Brother, the king that was the pretender. I think it was Edward IV status in the family was well known and the Woodville marriage was the defining moment. An illegitimate king with illegitimate heirs. To much for the man who would be king to accept. The crown was within his grasp, fate saw to that. He took it. Henry Tudor got lucky. Henry's mother, Margret was just unstoppable. What a force she must have been.

[@harrygallagher4125]

Yours is an excellent summary investigating this bizarre theory. Regarding the ultimate fate of the princes, there is one very important fact that to my mind jumps out as salient in resolving the mystery, a fact that when I came across it it turned me around from decades of dismissing as nonsense those proclaiming Richard as innocent of the murder of the princes to becoming convinced of Richard’s innocence! Aside from the documents found in the archives of the College of Arms which stated that “the murder [of the princes] be the vise of the Duke of Buckingham" there is also the mention something else of the utmost importance. That is: “It is known that when the two men met a month later there was an unholy row between them.” [see Bennett, Michael (1993). The Battle of Bosworth (2nd ed.). Stroud: Alan Sutton. p. 46.]. This refers to Richard’s return from his royal progress North which he left for immediately after his coronation. The other of the two men mentioned was Buckingham whom Richard had left in command of the capital in his absence for around a month. As Constable of England, it is extremely likely that Buckingham would have had access to the princes while in the tower and in Richard’s absence. A month later, Richard returned with his wife feeling triumphant and relatively secure. What then could have caused this “unholy row” other than something truly shocking to Richard's mind? It doesn’t take much imagination to answer that question. It certainly wasn’t because Buckingham had informed him that the princes were now dead on Richard’s orders. And what would have been the motive for having the boys murdered on his own volition? Buckingham thought that Richard would have been pleased to learn that this omnipresent threat to his crown was now permanently discharged. Thus, Buckingham was trying to ingratiate himself to Richard as the king’s most loyal lieutenant and strengthen the position of the horse he had hitched his wagon to. When Richard learned this, he quickly disabused Buckingham of this notion and the duke became rattled and fearful that he was living on borrowed time. For now, Richard could not have made the murders public for fear that no one would believe he had not ordered it. How else can one explain the otherwise inexplicable fact that Buckingham joined the rebellion against Richard in favor of Henry Tudor? Buckingham was already Richard’s number two man. He was going to risk everything in the hope of becoming Henry’s number two man instead? It makes no sense! His part in the rebellion was not the act of a devious man, but rather one of a desperate man! The theory that Buckingham had been responsible for the murders is not widely accepted, at least on his own volition, by historians. And what is the only answer given as to why? Basically, it is because Buckingham wouldn’t have dared do such, which is insipid! He had been a very audacious man and did so fully believing that Richard would be grateful to him for taking the onus off of the king’s conscience for responsibility for the despicable yet necessary action, at least in his mind. Finally, in all honesty I don’t know what Richard’s endgame had been regarding his nephews in the tower. He did usurp the throne on the flimsiest of pretexts, but he felt he had no choice because he thought he was in a kill or be killed situation as Edward V was totally under the sway of the Woodvilles whom he had never gotten on with. Yet despite the aspersions cast upon him, he did have a conscience and was a religious and pious man at heart. As many have stated, not only did he not have Clarence’s son, his other nephew, killed, he treated the boy well, a boy who was just as much a threat to him as Edward IV’s sons by his very existence. As you point out, attainders can be and often were easily reversed for matters of political expediency. Perhaps Richard would have just kept putting the matter off in the hope that he would eventually think of something to address the lingering issue as events unfolded. As I said, I honestly don’t know. But I am convinced that at least Richard had had no part in the murders when they occurred. In my mind: Case closed! Reply