Who Really Murdered The Princes In The Tower?

'Who Really Murdered The Princes In The Tower?'
Wars of the Roses historian Matt Lewis visits the Tower of London to talk through one of the building’s greatest mysteries: the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. He talks through the possibility that the two young boys were not murdered on King Richard III's orders, but in fact survived their uncle's reign.
Sign up to History Hit TV now and get 7 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
And remember, as KZbin subscribers, you can sign up to History Hit TV today with code KZbin and enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!
For more history content, subscribe to our History Hit newsletters: www.historyhit.com/sign-up-to...
#historyhit #richardiii #murdermystery

[@topcat9852]

Apparently, Charles III is keen to have the bones of the children found in the tower forensically analysed whereas his mother was not.

[@lefantomer]

Yes, please! They have not even been carbon dated, let alone had their DNA, if recoverable, tested, as was done to finalize the identification of King Richard III after his bones were found. At least we might be able to establish whether or not they are the remains of Richard and Edward.

[@shannon890]

The issue is so many of those bones were stolen and replaced with animal bones, we don’t know what’s left

[@kohinarec6580]

"they are King Charles' spaniels"

[@JP-zy3er]

… the lady who found the body of Richard III in the car park continued her quest to clear his name & has recently found evidence of Prince Edward being hidden in Coldridge, Devon. It’s proper Da Vinci Code stuff… just Google it! X

[@joeblog2672]

I find it appalling that QE2 did not commission this action given the technological revolutions uniquely akin to her reign. Was she so afraid that a 20th generation removed (very loose approximation) ancestor of hers was a possible multiple child killer? Did she think a modern day positive confirmation of the bones would have rallied today's English Republicans to 'Bastille' like revolt over the monarchy? If her inaction was a case of not wanting to ruffle proud feathers then she deserves a boot to her royal posterior in effigy! Get the forensics done now Chucky3!

[@user-kv1nj2kz6r]

Wow! The first person to make an informed video with possible theories that do not include all the previous rubbish. Well done that man!!! Subscribed!

[@johnyarbrough502]

At 11:30, reference to Lord Bastard and Calais in 1485 is most likely John of Gloucester, Richard's illegitimate son who was appointed governor of Calais at that time and to whom the appellation "Bastard" was sometimes applied.

[@nbenefiel]

Richard’s illegitimate son was not a lord and was never referred to as a lord. One of the entries in Richard’s account rolls refers to Edward, son of Edward IV. The other refers to the Lord Bastard. The entry in the account rolls of Margaret of Burgundy referred to Yorkist heirs.

[@ashleyleonard8148]

He wasn't! His illegitimate son was younger and wasn't a lord of Calais.

[@leanie5234]

I can never get past the fact that Uncle Richard insisted that Prince Richard join King Edward V in the Tower. Why would Richard III imprison the "spare" ? There is only one reason which makes any sense; King Richard knew that Edward would be killed so the next-in-line had to go too. Declaring the boys illegitimate would never have been enough to ensure a secure throne for Richard. He had already done away with some of the lords who had any power to object. As for the actions of the dowager Queen....she was probably being pragmatic rather than supportive or trusting of Richard. What choice did she have ? Her sons were gone, she still had many daughters to protect.

[@lefantomer]

They were not "imprisoned". It was traditional for the new king to stay in the Tower before his coronation. He would make the trip from there to the Abbey. This happened before Edward and the other children were found to be bastards because their father was a bigamist who had not taken the steps that might have at least protected their legitimacy, but that's another story. Richard was supposedly sent over because Edward was lonely. As for the "lords" Richard "did away with", they were Elizabeth's relatives caught trying to prevent Richard, designated by his late brother as the Protector, to take charge of King Edward V's procession into London.

[@cherrytraveller5915]

The boys existence meant that the throne would never ever be secure while they lived. I wish people would understand this. George Duke of Clarence had two children a boy and a girl that were both barred from taking the crown as their father and been attainted under the treason act. That didn't stop others from forming armies to put the son of George on the throne. There is a saying child today my enemy tomorrow. They took it seriously

[@cherrytraveller5915]

@@lefantomer incorrect.

[@lefantomer]

@@cherrytraveller5915 The Buc is now available. Go ask him about it. At this point nobody knows what happened to those kids. Get King Charlie to let us into the urn.

[@nbenefiel]

@@lefantomer There are two interesting points about this case. One is an entry in Richard’s account rolls of money spent on “Edward the Bastard”, long after the disappearance. The other is an entry in the account rolls of Margaret of Burgundy, Richard’s sister, of money allocated for the raising of Yorkist heirs. We know what happened to all but two of the Yorkist heirs who survived Bosworth. HenryVII had them killed. HenryVIII killed the few who remained, including an 80 year old woman, Margaret of Salisbury, George’s daughter. Her brother Edward was executed by Henry VII. So who could these Yorkist heirs be?

[@mirrlamp]

One of the most frustrating mysteries of all time. I belive all the nobles knew exactly what happened to the boys but agreed to brush it under the carpet for the sake of expediency. Other English Kings had been bumped off in the past and the killers had the brass neck to say they died of some stupid reason like melancholia, but with the Princes, absolute silence.

[@kev3d]

I suspect because those nobles didn't want to come down with a sudden case of melancholia either. If the Princes' bodies were present, there would have been no doubt and I think there would have been pressure to not ignore the obvious, but if the bodies are never found, all nobles can exercise a plausible deniability on the matter. Who knows?

[@shawnastephens1536]

I think Richard had something to do with it.

[@joeblog2672]

From the moment Richard had done away with the Woodville protectorates, he was feared for the tyrannical power mad despot he was. His murdering (not even a 'legal' execution) of his former staunch ally Hastings accomplished much more in spreading fear than it did by removing a no longer politically aligned supporter. Now anyone who opposed Richard could have treason's axe fall upon their necks. Fear ruled the day and society had no means of challenging the tyrant except through armed rebellion, which happened two years later. We know R3 was responsible for murdering (or interchangeably 'executing' under 'legal' authority if one insists) the Woodville protectorate group. This was done of course because Richard was apparently deemed to be the princes' protector according to the wishes of the late Edward IV and saw the Woodville's as rivals to this cause. He also saw himself losing power within a Woodville family regime. What I'm not sure on is if Richard's goal was the throne from the moment of E4's death or if he simply wanted any and all power and influence of the Woodville clan out of his nephew's way. We do know R3 tried to brainwash the elder prince into believing that his trusted uncle (Anthony Woodville) was treasonous and must be removed. This brainwashing was critical for Richard to succeed as protectorate. If successful, the young prince would have disowned his mother's side of the family and Richard would now be the trusted guide to the prince's eventual throne ascension. However it is believed that the elder prince refused to believe Richard's bogus claims. This was disaster for Richard. Although Anthony Woodville was still alive for now (imprisoned) he clearly had made mortal enemies of the Woodville's. There was no turning back for him.... unless by some evil miracle Richard could finally persuade the young Edward towards his thinking. Otherwise for Richard it was everything or nothing. There was no middle compromise. If he could not align the prince (technically king I guess but I will stick with the prince vernacular) to his side he could not have him become king. This scenario also had the not so shocking revelation of Richard himself being next in line for the throne. By now the heir prince's younger brother had been pressured by Richard into his custody. If the elder prince was fated not to become (ruling) king then so fated was his younger brother as well. The only way to prevent the both of them from becoming king was cold blooded murder.... The boys might have remained alive as long as they did in the tower (nearly a year) because of Richard's possible ongoing attempts to influence them to his side. Remember that it was customary for younger heir apparents to reside in the tower as they awaited coronation so their being sent there would not have classified them as prisoners. Of course they were just that in effect. If there were any attempts to influence the boys they surely failed. Despite Richard's stall tactics, he knew he couldn't stall forever with more coronation date postponements... At this point I believed he ordered the murders of the princes. I don't know how he accounted for their having gone missing but whatever happened, Richard became Richard the Turd, officially speaking, getting his official coronation in the abbey. At least justice didn't turn a complete blind eye to R3's treachery. Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor, allied with the princes' mother (Elizabeth Woodville) to send money to Henry in order that he may lead a rebellion to take over the throne from Richard. Finally two years later, Henry was successful and Richard the Turd was rightly hacked to death and led posthumously about naked in shame on horseback.

[@nbenefiel]

If Richard had killed his nephews, he would have done what Edward did after killing HenryVI. He would have presented the bodies, declared they died from some disease, had Masses said for their souls, buried them with due ceremony and that would have been that. The mystery surrounding their disappearance made far more trouble for Richard than anything.

[@nbenefiel]

No one accused Richard of murdering his nephews because no one was certain that they had been killed. No one wanted a 12 year old Woodville dominated king anyway. I think Richard sent his nephews to his sister, Margaret of Burgundy, both for safety and to get them out of the way. I can think of no one else the “Yorkist heirs” mentioned in Margaret’s account rolls could be.

[@v.g.r.l.4072]

A very, very interesting documentary. The host is both careful on hadling his hypothesis and adamant on his lifelong interest on the fate of the princes. I hope he has more documentaries because he is a scholar worth following. In addition to that, it must be said that the filming was excellent.

[@williamrobinson7435]

Interesting question this raises. Well produced and presented. Thanks! 👍🌟

[@eri6954]

Richard likely had them murdered. It wouldn't even have been the first person he had murdered that year. William, 1st Baron Hastings, the guy that warned Richard that the Woodvilles were attempting to cut Richard out of the regency, was illegally executed supposedly because he was plotting with the Woodvilles, whom he hated. The more likely reason Richard had him killed was that his loyalty to Edward IV meant he wouldn't support Richard usurping Edward's son and taking the throne for himself. Richard also had the princes' uncle and half-brother killed, so clearly, Elizabeth Woodville was willing to come to terms with a man who murdered both her brother and son, because no one denies that he ordered the deaths of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. So the argument that her coming to terms with Richard meant the princes in the tower were still alive is weak at best. More likely, she was trying to ensure the safety of her surviving children. I don't understand why everyone wants to exonerate Richard. He, at the very least, was willing to usurp his nephew's throne. He had a lot of people executed to make that happen, so I don't get why everyone seems to think killing his nephews was a bridge too far.

[@Suuusan28]

You can´t be illegally executed. Execution is a legal process. William Lord Hastings arrived at the council meeting armed which was not allowed, of course, and try to attack Richard, Duke of Gloucester. He was also plotting with Morton, Rotherham and probably Stanley against Richard. Even Tudor sources mention this (Polydor Vergil). Hastings was for sure in contact with the French and paid by them. For purposes like this, i.e. treason, the significant power of the Lord High Constable was the authority to conduct a summary trial for treason, decide a sentence and enact it based on evidence that he had seen. The Lord High Constable could legitimately and legally act as judge, jury and executioner. Richard was appointed Lord High Constable at the age of 17 for life by the King Edward IV. He knew well how and when to act like one. Woodville and Grey were executed for treason, judged by Earl of Northumberland.

[@joeblog2672]

Excellent points, start to finish! The whole thing is incredulous. First off, Richard III's remains were granted scientific access for positive identification purposes and then later given a regal funeral and re-internment fit for a non child murdering king! Yet after all this, QE2 STILL refused to grant scientific access to the Tower of London bones which are a real candidate for the two princes' remains! I blame none other than QE2 for this supplementary travesty. Only within her reign has science had the means to cast real light upon this prevailing mystery from so long ago. If Chucky3 doesn't get the job done, Parliament needs to step in and supersede any and all regal BS on the matter and give those two boys a chance at justice 550 years overdue!

[@cherrytraveller5915]

@@Suuusan28 Richard had all those people executed on no actual grounds. There was no trials and no defence. What treason did Woodville and Grey actually commit? They may have been condemned for it but it doesn't mean they actually did it

[@Suuusan28]

@@cherrytraveller5915 Execution is a legal process. They were tried and sentenced by Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland. If you really want to know what (most likely) happened, read Annete Carson´s brilliant artical The Mysterious Affair at Stony Stratford. Then come back to me:-)

[@joeblog2672]

@@Suuusan28 Richard the Turd had Anthony Woodville and the others arrested on bogus charges of treason. He was determined to be the protector of the princes and did not want the Woodville's rivalling his authority here. Woodville and the rest of the protectorate were most likely 'executed' under cited legal grounds in a medieval kangaroo court. The difference between most executions and murder during this time period is pure semantics. Hastings on the other hand, had no trial, not even a bogus one. He was hauled out of a meeting he was baited into attending, thrown on the chopping block and done away with, all on Turd's orders, because Hastings had refused to vote in accordance to Richard's tyrannical purge in a council meeting. There is no credible evidence that I have come across that contradicts R3's guilt in this bloody affair. Certainly not in the (call it for what it really was) murders of the Woodville and co protectorates nor the murder of the princes. R3 only escapes official branding because we lack direct evidence of his guilt in the princes' murders. As far as I'm concerned, being left to rot under a modern day parking lot was too good for this lecherous scoundrel. What's left of him should have been thrown into some cesspool. But no, let's give him a Christian burial fit for a non child murdering king. Meanwhile the bones in the Tower of London, long believed to include the remains of the two princes, remain calling out for justice, even astonishingly in our modern era of scientific determination. Shame on you QE2!! Let's get going Chucky3!

[@colin.d]

If either of the Princes survived into the reign of Henry VIII then their days would certainly be numbered as he suffered no possible claimants to the throne.

[@jjh2456]

If the princes survived there would probably be no Henry VIII

[@ruairiodonohoe2533]

@@jjh2456 Henry VII his father was a brutal and vicious man, far more than Richie three. Richard was a noble King and a Plantagente, one of the last kings to actually trace his line Directly to Billy the conq. Its my opinion that Thomas Moore, Henry the VII and generally the Tudor Dynasty (Shakespeare anyone?)

[@ashleyleonard8148]

Uhhh...he let an heir survive. The Poles. John De La Pole as well. They were Plantagenents. More royal blood than anyone and they survived most of Henry VIIIs reign until one rebelled, and the others were accused of conspiring. One was in the church and was safe that way.

[@user-oi8ue3ns1g]

Nor did Henry VII. Edward, named Lambert Simnel by Tudor, John Evans. Richard, named Perkin Warbeck by Tudor.

[@nbenefiel]

@@ashleyleonard8148 John de la Pole was executed for treason by Henry VII in 1847.

[@elle_rose_xx]

I have an unfair grudge against the Tower of London because I got lost there for about two hours when I was 11 on a school trip 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@Jay-iu5bi]

That’s unintentionally hilarious 😂

[@Jordan_Starr]

How were you reunited? Did you search everywhere for your class or just decide to have a wander around on your own until they found you :)

[@elle_rose_xx]

@@Jordan_Starr well I literally walked in a big circle stuck in a crowd of French tourists until I managed to get down off this higher section, and my group leader randomly walked into me, didn’t seem to give a crap I’d been missing 😂

[@Jordan_Starr]

@@elle_rose_xx maybe this is what happened to the two princes. They just had a walk around, got stuck behind some french tourists, and no one noticed they were missing until much later on - by which time they'd simply been adopted by the tourists and were now unintentionally on a guided tour along he Thames

[@elle_rose_xx]

@@Jordan_Starr bahahahaha imma go with that theory I love it 😂

[@ShallowApple22]

Loved this the storytelling was captivating throughly enjoyed this concept I hope you will do more videos on this topic

[@mayaalieva938]

Actually he did bring up a good point. Why would Elizabeth Woodville agree to let two of her daughters be a part of Richard's court if Richard did say, for example kill them? He is a king but she is a mother and they were in sanctuary, he couldn't order or force her to do anything, so long as she stayed there. So something had gotten her to leave and let her daughters go into his custody. (Unless of course she wanted eyes and ears at the court to find out what happened herself) this honestly raises even more questions.

[@CaptainPikeachu]

Well I mean, one could also argue why did she let her daughter marry Henry Tudor if she thought they had anything to do with the murder of her sons?

[@lisalisa4182]

Would she have had a choice?

[@nbenefiel]

@@lisalisa4182 certainly she had a choice. If Richard had forced her or her children to leave sanctuary, he could have been excommunicated, England could have been put under interdiction as it was when John refused to accept Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1208. Elizabeth joined her daughters at Richard’s court and accepted land and a generous stipend from him.

[@lisalisa4182]

@@nbenefiel So her son could have been made King even while in sanctuary? I wascunder the impression that her being female, even if royalty, would have left her pretty much powerless over the fait of herself and her children. (Not trying to argue, I am sincerely interested.)✌🏽

[@simenonhonore]

Ingenious lawyerly exposition of the issues surrounding the fate of the 'princes in the Tower'. I cannot help but be reminded of Dan Jones' comment, "the medium-term context for deposed kings tells us that deposition mandates death - Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI..." They may have survived and there are certainly some odd features to this case like the silence of their mother and Henry VII who could easily have pointed the figure against Richard. My current feeling is that John Dening's view that he was forced into a corner and signed a document of sufficient ambiguity to allow for them to be done way with is more likely, though others, not least in the Church, were complicit.

[@flipw3605]

Their mother held off Richard's kidnapping of the boys.

[@chrisball3778]

It may never be the obvious suspect who did the murder in Agatha Christie novels, but in reality it usually is. 'Disappearing' the princes made their status ambiguous, to the point that people still argue about it today- the very fact this programme got made shows that he could have materially benefitted from not displaying the bodies. Tyrannical governments have 'disappeared' people in modern times. The disappearance alone is enough to instil fear, but the lack of resolution also inspires confusion. It makes perfect sense that Richard might not want to show the bodies of the princes- literally nobody likes confirmed child-killers, and if he was exposed as one then he'd have struggled to maintain his support. In medieval times publicly displaying royal bodies was often done to demonstrate they hadn't been murdered- e.g. with Edward II and Richard II, even though in actuality the deceased was often killed in a way that didn't leave outward signs of violence (both the above were probably starved or smothered to death). This wasn't an option for Richard- he had two competitors to dispose of. If if they'd both died at the same time people would obviously have known what he'd done. If he'd killed one, then waited to kill the other, his rivals would have their suspicions aroused by the first death, and would have been emboldened to intervene to save the remainder- either through a coup against Richard or by demanding the surviving prince be placed in the care of a neutral party. 'Disappearing' the princes could have been seen as a way to buy Richard time to consolidate his power. It was a strategy that ultimately failed, because word got out and the nobles were so disgusted by his apparent actions that they decided that they'd rather rally around a man with as flimsy a claim to the throne as Henry Tudor than tolerate Richard any longer, but it was still a logical strategy given the political context Richard was operating in. As for all the nice stuff Richard supposedly did before he became king... well, I hate to bring bad news, but sometimes politicians say or do stuff to ingratiate themselves with people they want to support them without really meaning it! The bills for fabric and food don't prove a lot- they could easily be for another royal bastard, or even just be the result of a crooked accountant fiddling some expenses. Elizabeth Woodville was only even hiding in Westminster Abbey in the first place because she was afraid of Richard. She couldn't have stayed there forever, and the fact she chose to finally emerge in 1484 might be for all kinds of reasons, not least of which was that she potentially knew her sons were dead and that she was no longer seen as a major threat to Richard, giving her more opportunity to plot revenge. Her daughters were potential queens, so she'd probably not have much choice about turning them over into Richard's custody. Henry Tudor was no angel, but his treatment of the two impostor princes Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck was notably lenient (Warbeck was also allowed to live at court, and was only executed 2 years later after he tried to go on the run). If Henry was as ruthless as this conspiracy theory says he was, then you'd have expected him to kill them on the spot, as he could easily have done. He didn't need to accuse Richard of murdering the princes because by that point it was common knowledge. It'd be like Donald Trump or Joe Biden going out of their way to accuse Osama Bin Laden of destroying the World Trade Centre- utterly pointless, and posing more questions than it answered. How would Henry possibly have maintained the Woodville's backing to marry Elizabeth and become King if they knew the rightful heirs were still alive? And if he killed them, then why would they cooperate? All the supposed problems with the idea that Richard killed the princes are amplified tenfold when you try to reason that Henry Tudor did them in. The conspiracy theory has far more holes in it than any gaps in the 'official story'. So very, very many unsubstantiated 'what if's' in this film. 'Alternative histories' like this usually rely on highlighting very pedantic inconsistencies in conventional historical narratives, then instead of explaining possible reasons those narratives may be inconsistent, but still broadly true, they propose an alternative narrative, without ever stopping to expose the alternative narrative to anything like the same degree of scrutiny. The alternative narrative here makes basically zero sense, whilst it's very easy to explain why Richard may have killed the princes and then covered it up. Still, this was kind of entertaining, and the presenter is clearly knowledgeable and enthusiastic about medieval history.

[@nbenefiel]

If Richard had killed his nephews, he would have announced the deaths, probably from illness, displayed their bodies and buried them with all due ceremony. Their disappearance only made trouble for Richard.

[@nbenefiel]

There is simply no evidence that they were murdered.

[@chrisball3778]

@@nbenefiel Yes there is. They went in the tower and they never came out. There were never any explanations given by Richard for their disappearance. Numerous people around at the time thought they'd been killed. Their own mother seems to have assumed they were dead. There were those child skeletons unearthed in the 17th century. There's an absolute tonne of evidence that they were murdered. Is it conclusive? No it's not. It's very strong circumstantial evidence, but it's not conclusive. Is there evidence against the theory they were murdered? Yes. But it's extremely weak circumstantial evidence, and there's a lot less of it than the evidence that points towards Richard murdering them. I.e. on the balance of probabilities, Richard III probably murdered his nephews, but it happened a long time ago and it's impossible to prove.

[@HannibalFan52]

Henry VII married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Sir James Tyrell was granted a pardon on 16 June 1486 and again on 16 July 1486; both times, the reason is not given, which is highly suspect This is the most likely time period for Edward and Richard to have been murdered. That means that Elizabeth Woodville cooperated because she knew the boys were alive. She was also wise enough to know that it would be difficult to raise a rebellion in favor of two underage children, no matter how good their claim might be. People still remembered the excesses of Richard II, who was crowned at age 10, and most people likely wouldn't want to risk a repetition. The researchers for this program have gone back to primary sources, so while the theories are educated guesses, they're not made up out of whole cloth. The 'alternate narrative', as you call it, definitely does make sense. With his brother's children declared illegitimate via Act of Parliament (Titulus Regius), Richard had *no need* to kill his nephews. However, with Titulus Regius repealed *unread*, as Matt Lewis points out around time mark 14:00, it gives the boys an ironclad claim to the throne over Henry. Ergo, he's the only one with a real motive to have them killed. By the way, there some 18 other claimants to the throne besides Edward and Richard, such as John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln; Edward, Earl of Warwick; and Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, all of whom had precedence over Richard. They were all alive when Richard was killed at Bosworth Field, but most, if not all, were dead within a few years of Henry taking the throne.

[@chrisball3778]

@@HannibalFan52 More quibbling over details, while failing to provide any coherent counter-narrative. Henry VII was a violent, ruthless warlord. Hardly anybody disputes that. I don't personally think he was as bad as Richard III, but I still think Henry was a disgusting multiple murderer. Richard III was also a violent, ruthless warlord, but for some reason there's a weird queue of people that want to see him as a noble, innocent victim of propaganda. Richard very probably killed the princes, and definitely killed a bunch of other people and usurped the throne over his nephews. He was a horrible man no matter what angle you take. I completely fail to understand the impulse to romanticise him.

[@lisagagnon1747]

Outstanding Discussion, Thank You! ✨

[@Loyaultimilie]

Brilliant Matthew, as always! Being investigated as we speak!

[@Chipoo88]

A bit far fetched in my opinion, particularly the reason given as to why Richard wouldn’t show the boys if they were alive. Also sending them overseas would have been too big a risk. During this era, threats were always eliminated.

[@kartos.]

Right? Dude had a claim to the throne and there was only two young things standing in his way. 🤔🤔🤔

[@joanacifre9169]

Right!! It’s just too suspicious. Richard had something to gain, why wouldn’t he show the corpses to show he hadn’t done it. And also it does not seem likely they were alive, if they were at some point I would believe one or the other would have come back to try and get back the throne

[@RogerRoving]

They were not a threat to Richard though, only to Henry VII.

[@Chipoo88]

@@RogerRoving the rightful king and his heir were not a threat to Richard??

[@randomchance7796]

@@joanacifre9169 Bodies of boys of the correct age, wearing velvet (only legally worn by royalty) were found in a hole under stairs covered by boulders, exactly where the rumors at the time said that the boys were buried. Also, receipts during Richard's reign showed that food and bedding stopped being delivered. All of the revisionist theories have massive holes in them, but then so do the flat Earth theories and people follow them.

[@thechieftain21]

Absolutely fascinating 👏

[@joansavage1857]

Thank you! This was so interesting.

[@FrydaWolff]

With the monarchy would get over itself and just permit DNA testing of two Tower skeletons, sheesh.

[@chrisball3778]

I don't think there is any evidence that the UK monarchy is blocking DNA testing of the 'Tower Skeletons'. None of them are descended from either of those two CHILDREN anyway. If the skeletons are the princes... then guess what? They died without having kids. If they're not... then guess what? They were probably still murdered anyway. None of any of that affects anything politically and nobody has any reason to block DNA testing.

[@nbenefiel]

Recently, a group of forensic anthropologists examined the 1930’s photographs of the skeletons. They determined one was female.

[@louisavondart9178]

The Duke of Buckingham had the motive and the opportunity. If Richard the 3rd is " infamous" it's only due to Tudor propaganda. He never wanted to be King and never expected that Edward would die so young. He had been appointed by Edward as Regent so there was nothing untoward there. Richard had always been a capable military commander and a fine manager of his large estates. There was no doubt about his ability to rule as Regent but when Buckingham murdered the young Princes, Richard had no choice but to assume the throne and try and deal with the unrest that Buckingham and his cronies were causing. The treachery of some of his Barons, on the battlefield, sealed his doom but he wasn't the evil man portayed by the Tudors... who were the real usurpers.

[@otisdylan9532]

If Richard didn't want to be king, then why did he have the princes declared illegitimate? Also, Richard assumed the throne before the princes disappeared.

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

THEN WHY DID RICHARD TAKE THRONE WHEN THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER?

[@clareb8015]

@@cyrilmarasigan7108 because sh!t happens when there are boy kings.

[@CaptainPikeachu]

There is a big problem with your claim though, if Richard didn’t want to be King, then why did he declare his nephews illegitimate and take the throne of young Edward while the princes were still alive? Your facts are simply incorrect and do not match up to the timeline. Richard didn’t assume the throne after the boys died, the boys were still alive when Richard took over.

[@MyrnaMinkoff-yy4qd]

@@otisdylan9532 He didn't 'declare the princes illegitimate'. A Bishop came forward who had officiated at the troth-plight of Edward and Lady Eleanor Butler, though the Tudors called her Elizabeth Lucy to hide the fact. Eleanor was a very high ranking lady, the daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, 1st Earl of Waterford, 7th Baron Talbot, Knight of the Garter, called "Old Talbot", a famous military commander. She was also a descendent of Edward I. This couldn't be swept under the rug. It was put before Parliament. This resulted in the Titulus Regis, declaring Edward a bigamist and his children bastards. Henry tried to have all the copies of it destroyed, he missed one. This secret was probably one of the reasons Edward's brother George of Clarence, who had likely heard it from the Bishop, was put to death.

[@sylviahuettig8353]

why should he kill the princes ?he raised the son of his brother George,who had a better claim of the throne than himself.He was always loyal to his brother before his dead.why would Elizabeth Woodville give her daughters in his care ,when she believed her sons were killed by Richard???

[@otisdylan9532]

I think Richard thought that George's attainder barred George's son from the throne.

[@CaptainPikeachu]

He’s so loyal to his brother that the moment his brother died, he took the crown from his brother’s son? I’m sorry but is this how we look at loyalty? Also it’s not as if the girls would be any true threat when they aren’t gonna be inheriting anything.

[@havingalook2]

That was brilliant. Well done, well presented. I am very impressed and gives great food for thought. Thank you.

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

Interesting theory. I remember studying this as a 16 year old O grade schoolboy in Edinburgh, we were studying James IV, who, despite his military misadventure, was no fool and had some of the leading scholars in Europe at his court. James was utterly convinced Perkin was the son of Edward, gave him a noble wife, armed him and supported his claim. James was eventually brought into peace by Henry with the marriage of Margaret, his daughter to the Scots King. However, there is another school of thought that this was a cynical move by James to needle Henry and that Elizabeth, Gordon, Lady Huntly, was hardly a high ranking nobleman. However, Elizabeth was the great granddaughter of Robert II of Scotland through her mother this meant that were Warbeck the son of Edward IV, Elizabeth Gordon and Warbeck were both descendents of William The Marshall, Earl of Pembroke who was Robert the Bruce's Great Great Grandfather and was a dirdct ancestor, through his de Braose grandaughter of King Edward IV . Also being daughter of the Earl of Huntly, she was hardly a junior noble.

[@cherrytraveller5915]

Clearly the tale of Anastasia taught you nothing then. Anybody can be fooled. All you need to do is go to someone who has never meet the real person and make sure you fill in all the blanks in your story. Want another example of this then I give you Alicia Head who claimed to be a survivor of the twin towers. She convinced a whole load of people as well. She even gave talks until it was proven she was a liar. There are multiple examples were people have been fooled through the years

[@nbenefiel]

Margaret of Burgundy also believed that Warbeck was young Richard. As his aunt, she should have known. I always found it interesting that, while Henry was totally lenient to Lambert Simnel, he had Warbeck tortured, forced him to read that totally ridiculous confession and hanged him. Warbeck’s resemblance to EdwardIV was amazing. Henry was terrified of a Yorkist rebellion. It would be interesting to test Warbeck’s DNA.

[@edithengel2284]

@@nbenefiel His body seems to be irretrievably lost, unhappily. Would Margaret be a reliable judge? I know she was close to her family, but she did leave for Burgundy 2 years before Edward v was born.

[@nbenefiel]

@@edithengel2284 when I was an undergraduate studying the Middle Ages, I remember my teacher telling me, if the account roll records Sixpence spent for 3 ells of blue silk ribbon for the boy born to milady Michaelmas morning, you could be sure that Milady bore a son. He may have died shortly after birth, but he was born alive.

[@nbenefiel]

@@edithengel2284 I think Margaret would know if her brother entrusted his nephews into her care. I simply do not know who the Yorkist heirs could have been if they were not Edward and Richard. We know what happened to every Yorkist heir except for Edward and Richard.

[@josephcollins6033]

Wow! I actually feel proud of all the success you are having! Thanks for this, Matt!!

[@peachyllama722]

Thank you for putting this up, it kept coming up on my feeds via the daily fail; didn't want to sully my eyes

[@beana666]

SO good to hear a rational and unbiased account of King Richard III and how interesting to hear the theories behind the Princes' disappearance. THANK YOU. LML

[@brontewcat]

Can we just make it clear that for every hole in the theory Richard was responsible for the death of his nephews, there are far more holes in the theories about every other suspect.

[@jamesmiele5660]

well said brocat!

[@flippy66]

This video doesn't discuss other suspects. I am intrigued by the survival theory.

[@jamiemohan2049]

Tbh. This is the likely case of the most obvious suspect committing the murders. He had the most to gain.

[@brontewcat]

@@flippy66 While it is possible one of the princes survived, the evidence doesn’t suggest this. The only evidence that suggests this is some references to spending on “my lord bastard” after the princes disappeared. The problem is this was also what Richard’s bastard son was called. Also if the princes survived - would not the reference be to the lords bastard (plural). If it was only one prince who survived it is usually suggested it was the younger boy, Richard. While Edward V was referred to as my lord bastard, there is no reference to Richard D of York ever being called this. The new king is interested in history, and it is possible he may agree to the bones of the boys in Westminster Abbey being DNA tested. This may be a lot easier now, as we now have the DNA of Richard III. If the bones are those of his nephews DNA testing will show a familial relationship. His DNA may not prove 99% the bones are the boys, but it can show 100% they are not related.

[@flippy66]

@@brontewcat I said I was intrigued, not convinced.

[@josephcollins6033]

Matt, you are really very good at this. You look great. You are relaxed and "easy' with the camera; no theatrics and over-dramatizing. And, you are friendly to the viewer. I hope you do more of these. I am particularly glad to see this because I did not like how Worsley handled the interview with you. All of your points, your thinking and your synthesis of primary sources are valid and interesting. Great job here! Joseph

[@MsSteelphoenix]

While Richard could have done this, I would definitely belive it much more of Henry.

[@TheSuzberry]

Henry Tudor had no valid claim to the crown. Once Richard was dead, the boys had to be eliminated or they would have been used to rally rebellion.

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

Henry was in France tho

[@annwilliams6438]

@@cyrilmarasigan7108 We have no idea when the boys were killed….

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

@@annwilliams6438 they was probably killed during Richard iii's reign since IF Elizabeth of York found out that his husband killed his brothers and they were going to marry her off she would back off immediately

[@MyrnaMinkoff-yy4qd]

@@cyrilmarasigan7108 His mother and step father weren't.

[@danimartin818]

The simpliest answer is usually the right one. The princes were likely killed and Richard likely had them killed just to do away with the threat. He didn't need to display any bodies, he just needed to be sure that there would never be any live body for an ambitious party to rally around.

[@shannon890]

I think it was Margaret Henry’s mother. She had access to the tower, was at the tower and the only one who benefited

[@paloma4444]

exactly

[@jimmyrutledge5115]

​@@shannon890 Utter garbage.

[@cherrytraveller5915]

@@shannon890 no she didn't. Those boys were the biggest threat to Richard and only to Richard. Need I remind you of the role that Richard played in the murder of Henry VI.

[@jamiemohan2049]

​@@shannon890im sorry but it makes the most sense Richard killed them. He went out of his way to imprison them, wipe out much of their maternal family anf declare them illegitimate. The Margaret Beaufort theory is a fantasy. This is a case of the most obvious culprit being the murderer.

[@bkohatl]

My candidate is Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham. His claim to the crown was actually better than Henry Tudor/VII. He was Richard III's Constable of England and in charge of the Tower of London. Richard III was declared King by Parliament and the boys disinherited. The boys posed NO threat to him. But Henry Stafford started a rebellion. If he had deposed Richard, he would not be King, Edward V would. So killing the boys profited him. There is evidence that Stafford was in communication with Cardinal Morton and Henry Tudor. All three profited from the boys' deaths. Final proof, Thomas More Never published his History of Richard III, which was a hit job, based on Tudor sources? I think because he found out that it was all lies. Secondly, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV wife, turned to Richard for protection, NOT Henry Tudor. If Richard murdered her sons, she would have to be a monster to do that. She wasn't. Finally, a contemporary document states the boys were killed "by the vise" of Henry Stafford. Which means, he killed them or had it done. briankeithohara.blogspot.com/2009/08/truth-is-daughter-of-time-real-richard.html

[@joeblog2672]

Elizabeth Woodville did not turn to Richard for protection. She fled from Richard by seeking refuge in Westminster Abbey. I doubt very much that a young Henry Tudor at that time could have offered her much protection in continental english territory, although France might have been better refuge than the abbey. Her brother Anthony Woodville was already imprisoned by Richard. She did what she could to spare the younger prince and her daughters. But why did Richard want the younger boy in the first place? To protect him from his mother's family? The country at large? If Richard was so concerned about 'protecting' the young king and prince then why did they disappear under his watch?

[@bkohatl]

@@joeblog2672 How about the James Tyrell conundrum, pardoned TWICE by Henry Tudor in 1485, then tortured and executed for murdering the boys in 1502. We know about the treason and treachery of the Stanleys and then their fall from grace, leading to William Stanley's execution in 1495. The Stanley family is the only reason Henry won at Bosworth. Why would he murder him? Elizabeth Woodville was forced, AGAINST HER WILL, into an Abbey within a year +/-, cut off from her children, family and friends, she died there and there were rumors that Henry Tudor had her murdered. Every time you turn around treachery was the largest part of Henry's character. From an English Historian: There was no political advantage for Richard III in killing the young princes. With Titulus Regius enacted, the two princes represented no threat to Richard once he was crowned king. But they were a road block to Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, and Henry Tudor, neither of whom would have become King after murdering Richard III. Edward V would have immediately become King, Since there is evidence that Stafford and Tudor were in communication through Cardinal Morton, could these two treacherous souls planned the boys murder, then their revolts, Stafford's first, since he had the better claim, and Tudors, once he had removed Stafford and the boys. The man was treacherous and evil, he paid off the Stanleys, then murdered William Stanley. The first question you ask in any investigation is CUI BONO, Who benefits? At ever stage, the answer is Henry Tudor. The two princes were more of a threat to Henry VII as the foundation of his Tudor claim to the crown was significantly less good than theirs. Although a Bill of Attainder was brought by Henry VII against Richard after the battle of Bosworth it made no mention of the princes' disappearance from the Tower, suggesting that at the time the Attainder was presented to Parliament the princes were not yet missing. The Bill of Attainder that Henry and his supportive magnates did subsequently file against the deceased Richard merely accuses him generically of "cruelty and tyranny" during his reign - there is no specific accusation, nor even a mention, in it of Richard's suspected complicity in the princes' disappearance / assumed deaths. The mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, remained on genuinely good terms with Richard once he was king, and her daughters regularly took part in social events at his court. Grant observes that this was hardly the behaviour of a mother who believed, or even just suspected, that Richard had ordered the deaths of both her young sons. There is no contemporary recorded evidence that the princes were missing from the Tower before Henry VII took over custody of them. It is only at that juncture that the rumours and speculative accusations start to be recorded in historical documents.

[@nickepearson4403]

This story has always intrigued me but my question is: if the boys were not murdered and were smuggled out of the tower, who arranged that? How and why did they do that? Was the person responsible worried that Richard III would have them killed??? It certainly is a story with many questions and mystery! 😊

[@jackreacher5667]

There is an excellent book by Audrey Williamson who has investigated the deaths of the Princes, I urge you to read it,and she discusses this very question. It's called The Mystery of the Princes.

[@langdalepaul]

Presumably it was Richard. There’s no question he needed the boys out of the way, and he had just illegitimised them, but it doesn’t follow that he wanted to kill them.

[@aprilneamhni2845]

And if they did, when Richard was accused or knew they were "missing", why didn't he issue a public proclamation that his precious nephews had been kidnapped and oh please help me find them?

[@daftirishmarej1827]

@@aprilneamhni2845 They weren't "missing", they were still in the tower - it was viewed more as a castle. I'm more of The Daughter of Time way of thinking. Henry VII had the most to lose - that's the question - who had the most to lose? More's history wasn't written at that time - many years afterwards

[@cherrytraveller5915]

@@daftirishmarej1827 Henry VII had nothing at that time. The only one who had something to lose was Richard III. Henry was not even in the same country and no one would have come to his aid had Richard produced the boys and put them on display to prove nothing had happened to them. You seem to forget that Richard had a hand in the murder of Henry VI in the tower

[@Bus_Driver_Jay]

I have sometimes wondered if perhaps it was Henry Tudor that ‘dealt’ with the princes.

[@doncook2054]

yes; it stands to reason.....

[@ladyfaith9347]

Margaret Beaufort

[@gingerkid1048]

He had to restore their legitimacy to make marrying Elizabeth of York worth the trouble…it made the Princes a bigger threat to Henry.

[@kingrubbatiti1285]

There was a theory that after Henry's victory at Bosworth,He arrived at London and when at the Tower, He found the Princes still alive and ordered their deaths.

[@otisdylan9532]

I believe that Edward's mother and Henry's mother were both convinced that Richard had killed the boys, and that was why Edward's mother helped Henry become king.

[@calj2405]

Well presented and nuanced discussion 👍

[@HistoryLover1550]

Great documentary on one of history's most enduring and gripping mysteries and the theories surrounding it. I am eager to know what the eventual reexamination of the skeletons long held to be the missing princes will reveal. While the evidence is not solid, I personally am open to the possibility that one or both of the princes may have survived (while it would have been kept secret and a "cover up" story organized). That will always be what makes a mystery with so few clues and various likelihoods so captivating, one never really knows when or even if they uncover the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

[@meredith2803]

I am too, I’m glad King Charles has given it the green light.

[@RogerRoving]

The presenter argues that the two “pretenders” to the throne during the reign of Henry VII were actually the two princes. But virtually every comment on here assumes they were killed as young children while still in prison in the Tower, if not by Richard III, (still the preferred villain), then by Henry VII. Am I the only one who finds the argument put in this video to be quite persuasive?

[@hogwashmcturnip8930]

I have always been of the persuasion that Perkin Warbeck was exactly who he said he was. Simnel, no, but how else did Warbeck convince some of the most important people in Europe, including relatives who had known the boys. The Tudor propaganda that they were all out to get Henry, and Warbeck was the son of a Dutch Bargee are frankly pretty farcical. I also don't get 'The Richard murdered them' trope. Yes, he wanted them out of the way, but they were the sons of his beloved brother, and his nephews. They were also the last of their line, along with him. (the girls would not have counted, other than to shore up a shaky claim) Is it too much of a stretch to think they literally disappeared? It also meant there were Yorkists left to put a spoke in the Lancastrian wheel. Even illegitimate, their claim would have been stronger than Tudor's. As evidenced by his rush to marry their sister.

[@aprilneamhni2845]

One of the many reasons Tudor came to take the throne was because Richard was a suspected child murderer by his own public. There were rumors everywhere and Richard made little to no attempt to refute them or produce evidence that the princes were not taken, had not fallen ill, were not harmed or had died in his care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@timengineman2nd714]

I hate to say it, by when Henry took power, I can understand if he had the 2 Princes killed so as to clear his takeover of the Crown.

[@chrisball3778]

Well, he married their sister, so it would have taken quite a lot of explaining to his in-laws if he did.

[@timengineman2nd714]

@@chrisball3778 With Richard III disposed of, Henry VII could have easily done it quietly and put the blame on Richard....

[@thestrategos4710]

@@timengineman2nd714 the odd thing being that he never blamed Richard, and was esp terrified of Perkin Warbeck.

[@andyshaw5378]

Awesome video Matt 👍

[@carinafourie9119]

I can’t fathom that a Woodville-York boy would meekly surrender his birthright if he had survived.

[@ashleyleonard8148]

They didnt. His point is Perkin Warback was indeed Richard (the younger of the boys) and that Henry VII of course wouldn't admit it. Why would Elizabeth visit(Henry's wife and Richards sister) a stranger that tried to usurp the throne? Why was he forgiven and let in court? Dressed as a noble? Why did Scotland marry a royal woman to him? Why did other nobles of Europe swear to this "fake" heir? He also (they found an order for weapons in an archive in Switzerland. Documents from the old county of Burgundy) Signed as Richard IV, son of Edward Plantagenent. With a royal seal.

[@brendanbrown3100]

Perkin wasn’t Richard. You’ll be telling me Lambert Simnel was Warwick next!

[@ashleyleonard8148]

@@brendanbrown3100 how do you know? If you watch the Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence it will clear it up for you. Mr Lewis is also in that documentary.

[@brendanbrown3100]

@@ashleyleonard8148 it’s quite fashionable to absolve Richard III these days - but bad history. He was a tyrant. Hastings was executed with no trial though Richard was kind enough to let him have some fresh strawberries beforehand. When Bosworth came, men turned on Richard. Richard is the one most likely to have murdered the princes. He had motive, means and opportunity others lacked. Henry Tudor had a sense of humour - would Richard have put Lambert Simnel to work in the kitchen?

[@michaelmccomb2594]

The reference to the ‘Lord Bastard’ in Calais. Is that not referring to Arthur Plantagenet, the illegitimate son of Edward IV, who was the captain of Calais.

[@ele5583]

Arthur was never Captain of Calais. Richard III's illegitimate son John was at the time.

[@michaelmccomb2594]

@Ele Arthur was Lord Deputy and Governor

[@ele5583]

@@michaelmccomb2594 I've never heard about him being deputy. Are you sure it didn't happen in Tudor times? Because as far as I know the first mention of him comes from Tudor times. It's them that awarded him the recognition as royal bastard

[@nancybradford8514]

I love Matt, and I'm so glad that he's brought forth his perspective on the princes in the tower and some impressive evidence along with it. Thank you, I really enjoyed this program 😊

[@johng6721]

What evidence? He is pretty clear that most of this documentary is speculative.

[@nancybradford8514]

Leave me alone please

[@nancybradford8514]

I'm simply leaving a comment for Matt, to be kind and supportive, not to get into a debate over ANYTHING, so you won't get a fight here.

[@paloma4444]

This is the weakest evidence ever and Matt is an idiot lol

[@medievalwolfgrrl]

I love Matt Lewis and this!

[@grandmapink]

Wonderful!

[@TheJennick13]

Just occurred to me that Richard III had no problem with making the public statement regarding the rumors he was considering marrying his own niece Elizabeth of York, so it stands to reason that if the boys were dead under his watch he wouldn't have had a issue displaying the bodies &/or making some statement about the boys to publicly clarify the situation, yeah?

[@aprilneamhni2845]

Not if he doesn't want to be accused of being a child murderer by his own people. That would be way worse than marrying a niece in the 1480s. He ended up being accused due to his silence on the matter anyway...

[@AoibheannStateira]

He'd need to prove they were dead. Because if they aren't dead then you have constant pretenders, like Henry VII found out. Constant threat of usurping. Parliament declared them illegitimate, so honestly, killing them without proving it did him no favors. But producing their bodies would at the very least prove their deaths, providing more stability, which Richard was a fan of.

[@debbiegoerlich1234]

WHOA - well done. As a member of the Richard III Society, I believe in my core and heart and soul, that Richard III did NOT murder his nephews. This presentation sheds a different light on the subject -- Thank You!

[@MoonshineTheDragThing]

I have been trying to tell the world of Richard III's innocence for at least 7 years now. We need to show everyone how wonderful of a man he was.

[@brendanbrown3100]

He was a tyrant! Henry VI, Clarence, Hastings and princes all agree.

[@nbenefiel]

@@MoonshineTheDragThing I’ve been doing it for 60😉

[@elsiegreenwich1382]

Great video!

[@CapB777]

Very interesting points brought up here and great video. I lean towards it still being Richard, but great counterpoints! Love Matt Lewis, he’s a star.

[@chemina8541]

@displaying the bodies would have been 'better' for Richard. Exactly! I only have to think of the myth of the Russian princess Anastasia surviving because her body wasn't identified for so long and the implications and hopes of royalists for someone of the family to have survived; it would have been similar for the Princes. If he was after the throne (and murdered the boys) he should have made sure that nobody, a few years later, can pretend to be a descendent (and thus heir to the throne) or the Princes themselves (if it fits the timeline), 'miraculously' returned to take their place on the throne.

[@jackreacher5667]

The throne of Russia was long gone and lost under the Soviets, Anastasia was more about the Romanovs Money and overseas possenions.

[@chrisball3778]

The fact that the Soviets DID murder the Tsar's entire family in 1918, despite all the rumours, and that Anastasia's acid-etched bones were eventually found in 1991 doesn't really make the theory that the princes' survival really seem more credible. If anything, it just proves that people will make up daft royal survival stories, even in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary.

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

@@jackreacher5667 hahaha it was actually true especially with rumors and coincedenced name of anastasia means ressurection which fueled more by impostors and also moviesss!! But we found out later the truth

[@a.gjosaether]

Lord Bastard is a solid band name

[@juliahenderson9421]

Loved it

[@karenvanhook6748]

Fascinating! And Matt Lewis makes a very good presenter.

[@geoffw8565]

Check out St Mathew's Church Coldridge in Devon and the tomb of a certain John Evans. Very interesting !

[@clareb8015]

Oh yes. That would make for a great documentary.

[@velvetindigonight]

Cryptic! PS I had a Google and an online visit to Coldridge Church in mid Devon fascinating. Thank you

[@geoffw8565]

@@velvetindigonight Ok so you get the connection regarding Princes in the Tower ?

[@kevdimo6459]

Thanks for this very interesting take on the story. I’d like to believe that they weren’t murdered but who really knows now.

[@leanie5234]

Yeah...they're certainly dead by now

[@magnus_jaya]

Excellent.

[@lonesomevalkyrie]

One of the greatest mysteries of the past!

[@annwilliams6438]

I’ve always thought that Henry’s mother would be the most likely to have organised their demise - either before, or after, Henry became king.

[@sunneinsplendour8459]

I agree with that.

[@lisaeriksson1081]

but how did she have acces to the tower?

[@savagedarksider]

@@lisaeriksson1081 I personally think Richard did it.

[@carinafourie9119]

Please no. This is perhaps only possible in the fictional world created by modern authors. But in reality, Margaret Beaufort simply did not have the means and opportunity to be behind this.

[@ladykemma3]

​@@lisaeriksson1081 her husband stanley was in charge of the tower

[@amymonroe9328]

I say we start a petition for the NEW King to have tests done on those little remains which had been discovered. It would at least identify those poor children, hopefully give them names again

[@lizmorris8793]

You don't need to have a petition King Charles has already said he is open to tests to clear up the matter

[@amymonroe9328]

@@lizmorris8793 I know! I wrote that BEFORE he did it. Crazy hey,?

[@user-bk2ki4dl4m]

I've read extensively on English history. This subject in particular. Fantastic program!! Lambert Simnel interesting but not entirely believable. Perkin Warbek being Richard is entirely believable. But the subject of the survival of both is fascinating to hear. Thanks for a great program. Rare. I'm with you. Richard was not a child killing monster. Too easy. He loved and was dedicated to his brother King Edward. To kill his sons??? I don't believe it. Happiest of New Years.🎉

[@dreamjackson5483]

History hit coming with the fire recently

[@jasoncornell1579]

Henry the 7ths mother is a good suspect

[@Luubelaar]

I was always sus of Margaret Beaufort. Her and Buckingham really seem sus.

[@kathyjaneburke2798]

Interesting stuff I've never believed Richard was guilty, Henry possibly. But, alive! That's awesome!

[@khfan4life365]

One of the most frustrating and oldest cold cases in the English-speaking world. Why did the late queen not want the bones tested? Was she afraid that they wouldn’t be the princes, thus creating a succession problem? I think, for the respect of the dead, the bones should be identified, so they can have names attached to them. Even if they aren’t the princes, they do deserve proper burials.

[@doncook2054]

Great video!! The truth is always not contained in "official" reports/victor's faux "histories"......

[@jamietrev]

This tale especially how the Woodville’s operate is excellently told in the superb tv series the white queen & the white princess

[@borleyboo5613]

Seriously!!!! That (The White Queen) was one of the worst so-called historical series I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch. So historically inaccurate it was laughable. For example, this rubbish had Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers arrested while in bed with JANE SHORE for Gods sake. When in fact he was arrested at Stony Stratford while bringing the young King south from Ludlow. To cite this as any kind of historical reference is an insult to the intelligence.

[@nicoladestefano706]

@@borleyboo5613 of courses that product wasn't devoted to historiography's sake but we have to admit thay thanks to "The white queen" a certain interest for how the cousin's war ended up for forging a new vision of politics in England is i my opinion irrefutable. Even if it was mere entertainment i guess it succeded to dive into perspectives which hadn't ever been in the spotlight before. Elizabeth woodville, for example despite being depicted as a complex enchantress was given that glimpse of humanity and sympathy that most historians denied her just to portray the icily cold yet malevolent queen who unmanned the king just for seeking her own interests. Documents must be consulted as critical points of view in order to ascertain historical statements on the other hand diversion may be fruitful as stimulation for research and not only as escapism

[@martinpook5707]

It has always made sense to me that it was Henry who disposed of the princes. It would have meant that only Richard stood between him and the throne and the murders could be attributed to Richard. Will we ever know?

[@fionaanderson5796]

Yes, it is interesting that Henry never created a fuss that they were missing when he took the throne. A fairly sure way of discrediting Richard III would be to accuse him of having murdered the rightful heirs in cold blood. If the boys were dead they were no threat to Henry, but good propaganda against Richard. Instead Henry was faced with claims from "pretenders".

[@lilymae7516]

If only back then the sisters would have been in line in front if their uncle like it wouod be today... doubt he would be able to kill them all without suspicion.

[@justineharper3346]

Didn’t Elizabeth Woodville have a falling out with Henry VII after he took the throne, after helping him get it. What if she suspected he had something to do with he death of her children?

[@brontewcat]

@@fionaanderson5796 The evidence is Henry did search, but did not accuse Richard because he did not have the evidence. In other words he could not find the bodies. If he killed the boys then he would have displayed the bodies (after ‘ageing’ the corpses). He would have said ‘Look what we found in the Tower. The two little boys Richard killed.” It would have served his propaganda much more to have bodies, and blame Richard for their murder. The problem with Ricardians is they start with the theory Richard didn’t kill the boys and look at the evidence to try and show he didn’t do it. Ricardians do not look at evidence and say what is the most likely explanation. The evidence is the boys disappeared on Richard’s watch, and there is absolutely no evidence either was alive in August 1485. That doesn’t mean they were dead, but it makes it unlikely they were alive.

[@jehannedarc1429]

The princes were dead nearly 2 years before Henry even landed in England.

[@hayleys1260]

Those poor boys didn't live, they weren't smuggled out, and the arguments made to suggest that were are, well, let's be nice and say a very big stretch. Richard had them killed because he couldn't be king with them alive. No one else had that strong a motive, and no one with lesser motives had the ability, the access to the tower, to have them killed. I cannot understand why people get fond of an historical figure - in this case, Richard III - and then become desperate, and do wild mental gymnastics, to believe that person didn't do the things they almost certainly did.

[@ivansmith654]

I'm subscribed to your channel, which means I love history even if it is not my history at time stamp 11: 39 I understood the words read, but I did not understand the point of what was read, so I miss out a big part of your video 😥 thank you for your time! I am still subscribed to your channel, mistakes do happen, I understand that no hate here!

[@leehallam9365]

The starting point of considering Richard as not being the sort of person who would do such a thing, because he was a brave warrior and capable ruler, interested in Social Justice and a threat to vested interests (an hilarious claim), who did not murder at the first resort, sets this off on a very poor course. It's gibberish, in history being a warrior or good ruler does not mean someone was not ruthless. Richard demonstrated that by having several of the Woodvilles killed pretty ruthlessly. Then the evidence, that Henry VII repealed the act which made the prince's illegitimate without it being read, didn't it also make his new wife illegitimate? Might that not be his motive? The problem with all this is what Matt tries to explain away, why did he not produce them. For two years it was commonly believed they were dead on his orders. While this may have prevented supporters focusing on rescuing them and making Edward King, it also allowed Henry Tudor to become his rival. He would not have invaded in the prince's name would he? If they were alive he could produce them and split his opposition. He didn't produce them dead because even then murdering children was not good for the reputation, and confirming it would have been a very bad idea, as even the rumour of it had Yorkist supporters backing Tudor. Finding bits of evidence that this or that references that might refer to one of them being alive, yet none are specific, and could refer to someone else entirely. They might even have been part of some pretence that they were alive. We can be pretty sure if Henry Tudor found them alive, he would have had them killed secretly rather than buy them new clothes. For decades the Richard The Third Society told us the hunch back was a Tudor lie, then the body is found and they were wrong. Yet they don't learn, its not Agatha Christie, its history, the likely suspect is usually the one that did it, or allowed it to be. There had been an attempt to rescue them, they were a threat and in a moment of fear Richard had them killed. I suspect he was not an evil man, and that it haunted him, but none the less he did it.

[@nbenefiel]

Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan were executed for treason.

[@TheMawalli128]

For me, my gut instinct (yes I know it’s not academic) has always been that Richard has been unfairly maligned and if anyone had a motive for the boys murders it was Henry Tudor

[@Weesel71]

Agree.

[@miles.1317]

Fully agree

[@jayerwin1025]

One documentary said it was Margaret, Henry VII's mother, to open the way for her son.

[@CaptainPikeachu]

He’s certainly not being unfairly maligned when he’s the one creating the suspicious circumstances that led to the princes’ disappearances. People can blame the Tudors all they want but it was still Richard who took the crown from his nephews and locked them away. He put them in a precarious and dangerous position instead of protecting them.

[@MyrnaMinkoff-yy4qd]

@@CaptainPikeachu Edward's troth plight to Lady Eleanor Butler cannot be ignored. It was a very big deal. She was the daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shewsbury, and a descendant of Edward I. No one knew about it until the Bishop who had performed the ceremony came forward after Edward's death. The princes were not 'locked away'. It was the traditional residence of the soon-to-be crowned monarch. It was used as a royal palace.

[@mishapurser4439]

Interesting that the Duke of Gloucester lived in and had lands in the north. Funny how much noble titles don't actually line up with what the nobility actually had or did even back then. Today the Duke of York lives down south, the Prince of Wales doesn't rule over Wales but is instead heir to the English throne, and the Duke of Sussex lives in America.

[@fadingjedi]

You could make a hell of an HBO series out of all this.

[@chrisball3778]

They did- it was called 'Game of Thrones'. The Wars of the Roses were one of the main historical inspirations for George RR Martin. The Wars of the Roses were fought between the houses of Lancaster and York. He just tweaked the names to Lannister and Stark*. *Plus he threw in a bunch of stuff from French and Roman history and others and just made up a lot of magical stuff.

[@Ellen24493]

@@chrisball3778 Would prefer an actual series on the historical events by Brits who are masters at period storytelling.

[@user-gq3ip8kr5r]

Starz has a great show called the White Princess and the Spanish Princess.

[@joanhuffman2166]

Yeah, people used to doubt that Richard had a twisted back, but then they found his skeleton. People persist in doubting the murder of the princes in the tower. But Richard had much to gain by their deaths, and he certainly slandered them by declaring them bastards. That's not the action of a good honest innocent man.

[@Eas697]

I mean, sure he had scoliosis but not to the effect that it would cause a notable physical difference.

[@joanhuffman2166]

@Tharxis There is a program about this. They found a young man with the same kind and degree of curvature as found in the skeleton of Richard III. It was visible and obvious. While they did have the young man do a number of physical activities in armor, and he was able to do them. The degree of curvature very definitely restricted lung volumes. As someone who worked as a respiratory therapist for 34 years, I assure you that is what scoliosis does. He would not have been able to inhale/exhale as much air as a person with normal spinal curves. That affects stamina.

[@dragonicmicrophone6594]

So, just to preface this, I'm not a historian, nor am I British. I am, however, very fascinated by all this! So these are the ramblings of an armchair historian. I think there was definitely a motive to murder the princes, but I don't think Richard III was the culprit. I'd say it was Henry VII and maybe Margaret Beuford (spelling?) as well. This all took place during the Wars of the Roses--if there's one thing we can all count on during war, it's that the very foundations of a country are shaken. And to top all that off, Edward IV dies suddenly. What better time to set up a usurpation of the throne? But Henry didn't go about it with brute force. He needed a scapegoat, and Richard III was that scapegoat. If he took the throne by blatant force, he'd have the entire country against him. The way the Tudors portray Richard III is incredibly malicious, painting him as an evil man, a child killer, insane even. I'd go so far as to say that the portrayal of Richard III by the Tudors is defensive, more than anything, like Scar from the Lion King making a law where the name Mufasa couldn't be mentioned. Usurpers have to make sure nobody with more legitimacy for the throne than they do turns up. Every pretender and legitimate claimant becomes a major threat. So yeah, I'd argue that Henry VII is the murderer.

[@katherinecollins4685]

Interesting video

[@user-tb6uj9hz6k]

As being the king, Richard had been responsible the security of two children. This was his duty as the king.

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

Love the sarcasm

[@michaeltelson9798]

There is the whole controversy over Edward IV being a bastard of an archer. His mother’s pregnancy went 11 months. The royal father was in France warring at the prime times for the pregnancy. If this was true, that disqualifies the two young princes and their sisters, then also Henry VIII. Having the princes declared legitimate makes them a threat to the Tudors, but the sisters are prizes.

[@jackreacher5667]

Edwards Father was not a royal, he was the Duke of York if memory serves.

[@nicoleroth3127]

@@jackreacher5667 He was. A royal duke with a very strong claim to the throne, which is what, amongst other things, was one of the factors that eventually led to the wars of the roses. And there's also the possibility, that Edward was born about 1-2 months premature. - Not necessarily a death-sentence for the baby even then. In a documentary where this was brought up, it was only deemed unlikely, because according to the questioned historian, premature births in that social sphere, and especially first born boys, were always recorded as such. However, since no-one recorded the unrecorded premature births, that's a statement that can't be reasonably made. So Edward IV simply could've been born prematurely. Or, seeing that not only his father was in France, but also his mother at the time, albeit in different locations going by the sparse records, they could've met up occasionally, leading to a perfectly normal pregnancy. Btw, Edward IV used to go by Edward of Rouen (before becoming king and all that), because that's where he was born.

[@MyrnaMinkoff-yy4qd]

@@jackreacher5667 He also had a better claim to the throne than the Lancastrians.

[@nbenefiel]

Edward was born 3 weeks early, not two months

[@elizabethmcglothlin5406]

It's possible that they did not die at the tower, though who knows who the skeletons found were. There were some records citing expences for 'the Lord Bastard's' upkeep from a different location. Still might have been murdered, but maybe not there. And possibly not by Richard. There's another name that comes to mind...

[@pamelaoliver8442]

Duke of Buckingham maybe? If MB put down the Philippa Gregory lol

[@karenlynn6860]

Very fascinating! True or not, it's intriguing. Thank you for this truly interesting distraction.

[@todoTudor]

Lambert Simnel personified first Richard, duke of York (the younger of the Princes in the Tower), but then he switched to personify Edward, earl of Warwick.

[@AgnesC1111]

Perhaps he was an illegitimate son of Edward lV.

[@adam_p99]

I can’t imagine the 1930’s scientific analysis being great by today’s standards. This mystery could easily be put to bed with today’s technology

[@chrisball3778]

It would only be 'put to bed' if they confirmed the bones were those of the princes. If they were just a couple of unfortunate kitchen boys who got the plague then the question would still be wide open.

[@adam_p99]

@@chrisball3778 when Richard III was found, they used DNA compared to a living relative that they tracked down, so I’d imagine they could do the same. Even with the same person. But they could rule out the discovered bodies if they were female, wrong era or a different age.

[@Suuusan28]

Unfortunately those bones are heavily compromised, so DNA testing is probably not possible. They can be carbon dated though so we would know from what time period they are.

[@paranihiaanaru4414]

I don't believe Richard III would have murdered his nephews, whereas Henry VII definitely had a motive

[@michaelmccomb2594]

Did Richard not have much more of a motive?

[@chrisball3778]

Well, Richard clearly didn't have much affection for his nephews, since even his biggest fans admit he had them declared illegitimate and imprisoned in the Tower of London. Richard had a lot more reason to murder them than Henry... or anyone else for that matter.

[@otisdylan9532]

Henry didn't have opportunity. The princes disappeared about 2 years before Henry became king.

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

Henry was in france he probably didn't know England state of what is happening

[@michaelmccomb2594]

@@cyrilmarasigan7108 I think his mother was in England, and was recorded as meeting with Richard at the time.

[@CoffeeLover-mz7bk]

I like your thinking, Matt.

[@elle_rose_xx]

The horrible histories Richard III song is RAGING through my head

[@Luubelaar]

So many Horrible Histories songs are just plain awesome.

[@elle_rose_xx]

@@Luubelaar literally know 90% of them off by heart 😂😂😂 and that’s just cause they’re so catchy 😂😂

[@Ashley_e]

You spoke of looking at the people around the princes. Richard III had Elizabeth’s son and brother executed. The surviving Grey son, went to the Tudor camp in a rage and tried to work the alliance. He was detained in France I believe. He seemed to never know they survived.

[@berniebobbie]

Yes...the surviving Grey son was Thomas...I am directly descended form Thomas....fascinating learning all about my rellies!

[@adampascoe1084]

The one thing that makes me believe that the princes were dead by 1483 surrounds the title of Duke of Norfolk (bear with me on this). Prince Richard was made Duke of Norfolk in 1473 at 4 years old when he married the Norfolk heiress Anne de Mowbray. She died in 1481 at the age of 8 and her vast estates should have gone to her heirs Lord Howard & Viscount Berkeley. However in Jan 1483 an act of parliament gave these estates to Richard for his lifetime, and on his death would it pass to his heirs (if any). Viscount Berkeley renounced his claim on the estate in lieu of Edward IV paying off his debts. When Richard III ascended the throne he declared the princes illegitimate thus stripping them of their royal titles. But, this would not take away Prince Richard’s title of Duke of Norfolk because that was his by right of marriage to Anne Mowbray and only an act of attainder could remove it. So when Richard III made his friend Lord Howard (the original heir to Anne Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk in June 1483 he is admitting that the title was vacant because the previous owner was dead. I would also say that Lord Howard is definitely a suspect or accomplice in the murders. He had everything to gain by their death and he was very close to Richard III (carried crown at his coronation & was appointed Lord High Steward, Earl Marshall & Lord Admiral). Food for thought.

[@aprilneamhni2845]

Thank you.

[@justineharper3346]

Interesting. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the fun fact 😊. I’d say I have to agree with you.

[@cyrilmarasigan7108]

True, but either way the 4 theories of Richard iii killed his nieces, his allegiance killed the princes, Margaret Beaufort killed the princes and Henry killed the princes was hard to looked who could be possible killers but the most probably is Richard and his allegiances since the Margaret and Henry argument seems to have holes cause 1. The beaufort was barged from the royal circle and her first husband has a weak claim to the throne 2. Henry is in France under the care of his uncle, so Henry probably wasn't interested in England's states by that time so that leaves with 2 theories about Richard iii and his noble factions

[@lisamiles8421]

The phrase "what if" doing a lot of the work here

[@helRAEzzzer]

I'm pretty sure there is a goosebumps story based on this mystery. I wish I could remember the name of it. It's tower something or something tower. It's my favorite episode!

[@stonesinmyblood27]

From a neutral angle, everybody is more suspicious of these murders, than Richard III

[@aprilneamhni2845]

🤣 what?

[@ellenkarlsson9490]

This was super interesting! With the rapid progress in ancient DNA analyses, I think it is possible to extract DNA from the bones from underneath the staircase, and if the government will allow it, it will be done soon.

[@cherrytraveller5915]

They won't

[@STR82DVD]

Well that makes things perfectly clear now.

[@stephanbach1652]

I am unconvinced.

[@stephenh732]

Fascinating piece. One wonders why this isn't put to bed with a touch of DNA testing. It really would help settle the matter. Another question that needs evaluating is whether there is documentary evidence that "heresius" existed beforehand and where he ended up.

[@24flyingcats84]

It's frustrating that the remains were last examined in the '30's. Technology and forensic techniques have come a long way.

[@twinsonic]

King Charles III needs to give his approval to examine anything related to royal bones

[@sdl1ishappy]

Fascinating. I've always been skeptical that Richard would have his nephews killed but not produce their bodies. I think one or both of the boys survived and it wouldn't shock me if one of the pretenders was not a pretender at all...but I guess we will never know.

[@renault8962]

It was Margaret Beaufort.

[@annieseaside]

Why not retest with our technology?

[@jasoncornell1579]

Richard was a genuine pious man by today's standards practically a monk and a warrior he served bravely in the wars of the roses

[@thestrategos4710]

and he remained hugely popular in the North (though less so in the South when he brought his nobles from Yorkshire down with him).

[@rogerharley8692]

Richard was not illegitimate He was haptoglobin g2a3 I would say the boys in the tower were the same, Its just history was changed.

[@nackymud8840]

But if Elizabeth Woodville knew her sons were still alive, why would she betroth her daughter to Henry Tudor? Also basically the whole surviving Woodville camp flocked to support Henry, many fought at his side at Bosworth

[@nbenefiel]

Richard was dead. HenryVII was king of England by right of conquest. Why wouldn’t Elizabeth Woodville have encouraged her daughter to marry the king?

[@cyankirkpatrick5194]

I had a book that said that he wrote the book that I had. I re look at this is great thanks I also am a fan of Richard the third. I feel the same way about his.

[@MoonshineTheDragThing]

Which book was it?

[@jessicajayes8326]

How is this not a Doctor Who episode?

[@savagedarksider]

Good question.