Unlock 'The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence' | Full Discussion with Historian Nathen Amin

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @hteysko
Get ready for a deep dive into history! 🕵️‍♂️ Watch the entire discussion with historian Nathen Amin as we explore 'The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence' together. We're sharing the full video for all our viewers!
📅 Don't miss out on future live events and exclusive content. Join our community today to be part of our historical adventures in real-time! Click the JOIN button now and become a member. 🔒🗝️
---Renaissance English History Podcast Website: www.englandcast.com/
Patreon: / englandcast
Tudor Learning Circle (book club & discussions): www.tudorlearningcircle.com/
Facebook: / englandcast
Twitter: / teysko
ITunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
TuneIn: tunein.com/podcasts/History/R...
Hashtags:
#tudorhistory
#tudordynasty
#PrincesintheTower
#HistoricalPodcast
#16thCenturyEngland
#tudorcourt
#britishhistory
#historydeepdive

[@mousygirl200]

Really, until DNA is done, no closure about the bones will ever be found.

[@wandapease-gi8yo]

The bones found under a stairway are not skeletons, only some bones which we have no access to these random bones of two individuals and there are questions that can be answered if they were made available. They are no more sacred than those of Catherine of Valois or even Henry VIII the tombs and caskets have both been opened. If only Professor Sue Black could get to examine them!

[@jamiemcvay130]

Henry VII was descended from an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt. He later married the boy’s mother, but it was on the basis that their children never try to claim the throne.

[@annedromeda9857]

Henry married the princes sister.

[@jancorwinenger8083]

Actually, Henry IV inserted the bit about barring the Beauforts from the throne-that wasn’t part of the original 1396 legitimization. And some historians question whether Henry could enact such a ban without Parliament’s approval.

[@wednesdayschild3627]

Elizabeth of york was declared illegitimate. Henry Tudor didn't need to marry her. Maybe it was to tie up loose ends.

[@mr.alaska2232]

I'm not a ricardian and I find it absolutely hilarious that people actually thing Richard did kill his nephew's,why would he kill them? They were illegitimate

[@matthewturner2803]

Illegitimate or not they were a threat. What one king and Parliament could do another could undo in terms of making them legitimate or illegitimate. If a hypothetical successful revolt against Richard had happened and restored Edward V his illegitimacy and the Titulus Regius would have been reversed. A dead king can't be restored.

[@frontenac5083]

*nephews

[@carmellarkin4803]

Because they could be legitimised again as their sister was before she married Henry Vll. Anyone with a claim to the throne was a threat to the incumbent as he or she could become a rallying point for discontented nobles. Look at the trouble the pretenders caused the Tudors. Why do you think Edward lV murdered Henry Vl and his son?

[@Pauline-wu4ej]

Well, he didnt murder Henry VI's son, as his son was killed in battle.

[@mr.alaska2232]

This is what it breaks down to people are so jealous. And they love to hate on Philippa Langley. She had the discovery of the century the woman is awesome. I'm not gonna join her society, but give her the credit where it is due.

[@frontenac5083]

What credit? She said about the princes "case closed" when obviously nothing's remotely closed, therefore making a fool of herself. She merely contributed to Richard III being found, but it was public knowledge where he was supposed to be have been buried. Her only credit might have been to have convinced people to dig there -- and if she did do that, well good for her!

[@rl3293]

No one is jealous of her. What a silly name calling person you are. Langley is simply wrong and NOT a historian.

[@luxste]

Why on Earth would anyone be jealous of that mentally ill woman?

[@JusticeforJessica-Gomez]

Exactly right! They ARE jealous . She is right!

[@blackcat2628zd]

@@frontenac5083 Please, check your data. It was Philippa Langley who is for 90% responsible for finding Richard. Her, John-Ashdown Hill and the members of Looking for Richard project did it. To make it simple (for you), without Philippa there would be no Richard.

[@alancumming6407]

This was a great interview with Nathen Amis. I find the final chapters in the Wars of the Roses fascinating, also believe the research and efforts of historians like Nathen, Matthew Lewis, Janina Ramirez and Phillipa Langley really make the past come to life. It therefore follows I was looking forward to the recent documentary. However, I was greatly disappointed and place the blame for this with Channel 4. Prior to broadcast they announced conclusive evidence of the Princes survival had been discovered. What had been discovered was some rather interesting documents - documents which (perhaps) could forward a discussion on events that played out over the early period of Henry V11 reign. However by forwarding the idea the mystery had been solved I believe Channel 4 failed, not only the viewers, but the Ricardians also. I hope Phillipa Langley continues in her quest and any future documentary regarding her findings will be presented in a different format, with more input from historians. Having read both 'Henry V11 and the Tudor Pretenders' and 'The House of Beaufort' I truly hope Nathan has not written his last book - both were terrific. Many thanks Heather for this interesting Podcast.

[@Moose.-vy5ye]

@alancumming, Phillipa published the results of the "first five years" of research by the Missing Princes Project in December. It's an interesting read. She states, several times in the book, that research by the 300+ team continues.

[@octavianpopescu4776]

1. I absolutely agree with Nathen's interpretation. I was thinking the same thing: they're gone while Richard has them in his custody, people talk about it at the time, why doesn't he show them? OR let's assume someone else did it and was trying to frame Richard. Why didn't he order an investigation? Only reason I can think of is: he did it and knew exactly what had happened. And even if he didn't do it with his own hand or on his direct orders, it happened on his watch. I see it in terms of command responsibility, the ultimate responsibility of a military commander (or political leader) for what happens under his authority. There were people convicted for war crimes for things they didn't order, but they tolerated. Richard, even in the most charitable interpretation I can come up with, tolerated the murder of the princes and so, is responsible for their death. 2. Why are people so tense about it? I think it's because it touches a sensitive cord considering the current day wave of conspiracy theories promoted online. Ricardians honestly come across as conspiracy theorists. Also, what do they have against Shakespeare? He was an artist, not a historian. Even if his take on Richard is wrong, it's clear he took his information from the historians of the time. If the image is inaccurate, the historians have failed, not Shakespeare. What was he supposed to do? Conduct an investigation over 100 years after the events? 3. I got Phillipa's Langley book "The Princes in the Tower" and no offence to the author, but it's probably the first time I regret buying a book and I'm most likely never going to finish it. I appreciate her trying to approach it like a criminal investigation, but she comes across as an interested party, frankly almost conspiracist, trying to convice me Richard was not a bad guy and she looks at small details, but never addresses the elephants in the room (at least she didn't as far as I've read about 1/3 into the book) mentioned at point 1 or how very uniquely convenient it is that the 2 princes are declared illegitimate and he just so happens to be the next in line... what a coincidence! Coincidences happen, but there sure are a lot of convenient coincidences that favour Richard. Or his execution of Lord Hastings (I think that was his name)... I'm supposed to think it was justified, with no trial, that Hastings was plotting something. And the very manner he does it: acting like nothing is wrong and then suddenly turning on his enemy. That doesn't suggest a very upstanding character to me as far as Richard is concerned.

[@gonefishing167]

Hi Heather, haven’t heard from you for a few days, missed your daily ‘treat’. Hope all well. Thank you for this 🙏🙏🙏👵🇦🇺

[@hjahansouz]

Great video! Thank you,

[@taborahsummerscooper3632]

One of the questions to be asked is if the only person who knew of the chest's content was the boatman how do we now know this? If this information was obtained post Bosworth this would have been very useful to Henry VII so why was this person not produced to give evidence to bolster his claim to the throne?

[@nathalia65157]

The upcoming book sounds amazing!

[@user-kp3li1yq5n]

The documentary and your response fail to mention the annals of ulster 1487 which also states it was a son of the duke of York ie Edward lv who was crowned there is no mention of earl of Warwick or son of clarence

[@smecclesshwifty8548]

I first heard Nathan on Rex Factor and his enthusiasm was gripping. Thanks for having him on Heather ❤

[@91945punx]

I love the Fred cameo.

[@pamelaoliver8442]

Nathan's lack of time has been noted on several platforms...

[@Chipoo88]

He’s very generous and gracious about the whole thing :). More reason to love the guy

[@OurBucketListHasHoles]

Hello Heather👋It’s so good to see you. I haven’t been getting notifications from you. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I miss your Tudor minutes of the day. 🩷

[@laurabrowning7973]

Enjoyed your video! Why don't you ask Matthew Lewis to be on your program to get the other side of the coin? I think that would be interesting! Thank you for posting!

[@hteysko]

He spoke about the potential survival of the Princes at one of the Tudor Summits we did :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqXcZqKraZd_f9U

[@jamiemcvay130]

Why does he think they were thrown in the Thames? Wouldn’t they have washed up somewhere? Bodies don’t naturally sink unless they are weighed down. In addition to the bones in the urn, there were extra bodies in the room where Edward IV and his family were housed. The bodies could be there. I think they died of the sweating sickness.

[@annedromeda9857]

The princes where declared illigitimate, they were no threat to Richard, Henry married their sister he would need her to be ligitimate. Henry had reason to kill them Richard didn't. Henry had no ligitamate claim to the throne. Unlike Richard and his nephews.

[@DonaldWalker-su8nj]

I don't find that logic compelling. An alive prince-- legitimate or not, is always a threat to a standing king. As Henry found out later with the pretenders (who may or may not have been the princes themselves). Until there is proof of death an heir is always going to pose a threat.

[@sivikasi]

I don’t have a strong view and I see your point but what has been done can be undone just as easily so while they were alive they were a threat to any King (see Mary I)

[@annedromeda9857]

@@sivikasi Indeed this is true, but as I understand it Henry VII went on killing any relative of Edward IV, his claim to the throne was very tenuous and through illegitimacy.

[@mayach5092]

Declared illegitimate by Richard because they were a threat to him

[@amyrodriguez3008]

The "princesses" were declared illegitimate as were the "princes" because they were a threat to Richard. If they weren't a threat to Richard he would of been what he was supposed to be "a good uncle/ Duke/ protector/" instead they were a threat to him, that's why he made himself king. Richard didn't have a reason to be king until they fabricated or decided to unearth the precontracted marriage / betrothal of Edward IV. Henry VII had no delusions about being king. Ever. Until Richard usurped the throne and couldn't provide the princes to show them. If Richard didn't make himself king/ imprison the princes, Henry would never have thought he had a snowball's chance in hell to become king. Did you hear Nathen remind everyone what the other men who became kings had? Acts of attainder. Edward IV, Henry VI etc. they should have been "no threat" but they were.

[@user-vb4bl6vh1c]

I think that Richard III was a hero who died in battle fighting for his crown. Whether or not he killed the Princes in the Tower doesn't affect my opinion. Good point about sending the Princes to France. The Princes were attended to by Dr Argentine. He subsequently became Henry VII's doctor. Was the doctor a source of information to Henry about the Princes? Now for the conspiracy theory. Did the Doctor murder the Princes on behalf of Henry? Mr A. Lisowski.

[@christinecallahan5512]

I love your Cat........

[@blackcat2628zd]

I was looking forward to this, though I know what Nathan will say:-). But he is smart and some of his arguments are worth to think about. Plus he likes cats which is a huge plus (the same for the host). Unfortunately, and I don´t want to be rude, the host knows very little about history and almost nothing about Richard III. Also she is starstruck with Nathen which means that she is not able to challenge him on anything. I am a positive person, I appreciate the effort and believe that next time it will be better.

[@vseddonvs]

I think there where a lot of other people wanting the Prince’s dead ,eg Margaret Buford

[@jamiemcvay130]

I really think that Perkin Warbeck was an illegitimate son of Edward IV.

[@johnbriggs3916]

The entire argument about Edward V surviving is as follows. Lambert Simnel (who was nearly the same age as Richard, Duke of York) was claimed as Edward, Earl of Warwick and crowned in Dublin as Edward VI. He invaded England with Irish and Burgundian (i.e. Flemish) troops and was defeated and captured at the Battle of Stoke Field. As he was only 10 years old, the Ricardians say that this is an obvious cover story put out by Henry VII: what must have happened was that the real Edward V (except that they don't believe that he was really king...) was crowned in Dublin as Edward V, and after capture was sent to Devon to live under the name John Evans (don't ask!) The conclusive evidence for this is that the Lille receipt for weapons for the soldiers says that this is to aid the son of King Edward IV, not the nephew (no name given.)

[@annmolloy8600]

The Tudors were monsters. Their actions speak volumes.

[@amanpannu3739]

Which is ur country?

[@jillianaprati108]

I feel like the evidence was definitely compelling but PL jumped to conclusions with it that I’m not ready to agree with just yet.

[@OurBucketListHasHoles]

Great video Heather. So let me understand this correctly. There are bones that were found buried in the tower, correct? If so then those bones have DNA. Therefore with the knowledge we have today in this day and age with DNA capabilities English historians should exhume the bones and have them tested and compared. This is just my opinion. This would answer questions as well as eliminating on a checklist of what has happened to the brothers.

[@cathrynbyrnes8737]

It was my understanding that the powers that be won't allow them to be exhumed and tested.

[@sarahmildenhall2078]

As far as i understand it historians have asked for the bones to be DNA tested but the royal family have refused.

[@OurBucketListHasHoles]

@@cathrynbyrnes8737 Who are the "powers that be"? This is ridiculous.

[@cathrynbyrnes8737]

I sure you’re right. I heard the royal family won’t let the dna be tested. DNA testing was refused on the grounds that it could set a precedent for testing historical theories that would lead to multiple royal disinterments. The church was also uncertain what to do with the remains if the DNA tests were negative, potentially leaving the church with the dilemma of how to manage bogus bones. That’s what I got. But I’m sure you’re right.

[@hteysko]

Exactly so, but with a small twist. Queen Elizabeth said no to DNA testing saying the boys, whoever they are, should rest in peace. But Charles has shown an openness to doing the testing, so we remain hopeful that something will happen sooner rather than later

[@finnjones9979]

They're were a great many people that benefited from the disappearance of the princes...not just Richard and until things are proved conclusively there will always be differing opinions Henry V didn't have a strong claim to the throne and yet his mother always believed that he could be king How do we know how much anti Richard propaganda was involved? History is written by the Victor

[@shemiahwalker]

I hope scientists come up with a new technology for DNA for those boys,because its injustice. 😢 fraudulent perhaps involved.

[@jacquelineherbert7123]

Can you say tudor probably arrrrr

[@Lickylongtym]

Margaret Beaufort Henry's mother was also in play for wanting and needing the young princes in the tower gone! From a long shot with still having some claim to the throne in the war of the roses! Once King Richard III was crowned only a big battle was in the way of her son becoming king! She had been a HUGE player in all of the war of the roses! So not only was Richard III a threat to the princes in the tower! The Percy have been in and around the crown for 500 years and still are to this day. So all things considered, there's more to the new findings than we take on board! I think that there was still bigger important people in play for the princes to help them without knowledge of other power players who stood loyal to the exiled Queen (the princes mother!) For the fact she had spies, she had ways and means of manipulating situations! The times they lived in the women were the biggest background game changers in this entire historical era! Queen Elizabeth Woodville could have arranged the princes' escape despite what the history narrative says! Margaret Beaufort is not innocent either and Richard III is also a suspect! The royal crown was up for the taking from so many different royalty candidates! And lives at stake so this whole new evidence SHOULD NOT BE DISSMISSED! More history research from all who was, could have been, and possible candidates should be seriously scrutinised and looked into! Documents, Diaries, correspondences dates times places and names as all was conspiracies, wars, battles, spies and so many countries, elite families and one English crown to be under questioning and much scrutiny!!! Nothing In history is as we are led to believe! Nothing is always a straight forward narrative! There was so many involved, so much change, battles, money, power, traiters, countries, decrepit and the British Crown! DNA the bones and put the historical narrative in a place of being g more right on some scientific hard facts! Whoever did kill them if it the princes remains will never be solved but we will know they never got away and that the bones are in the right place 🙏🇬🇧