I am crying right now from watching this what happend to those boys makes me sick its just horrible they did nothing wrong they were just kids its awful if i had been alive when they dissapeared I would have risked anything to find out who did it I want to murder the people who did this!!!!!!!!!!! I HATE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I only watched this because I'm the saddest person in the class because I am the only one who enjoys history and I was intrugued by this topic. I'm only in year 7, but I think I have used the widest amount of sources possible for a person of my age. In our lessons we have tried to solve this mystery and have gone into deep depths. I am still keen on finding out more- and I have now made myself keen to be a historian, because of cases like this. I still don't think I should judge Richard yet.
All of the people saying that Richard III was so fantastic and was a good king obviously haven't been paying attention in their history lessons. The battle of Bosworth is evidence that the braons didn't want Richard III to be king because they didn't agree with him saying that he passed obsurd laws and made them pay too much tax. At the Battle of Bosworth Richard had an army twice the size of Henry's. Now, at that moment the Stanley family had turned up and decided to take the side ...
There are so many bogus cases of people claiming to be children who had died years before so as to secure a particular fortune and-or position: Anna Anderson who claimed to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia (the youngest daughter of the last Czar), and even Lorraine Kramer claiming to be Loraine Allison, the only First Class child to die on the Titanic. The problem is, does anyone really change that much (especially in just a few years) that no one can recognize them at all?
Has anyone read The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory? (dunno if I spelled her name right) But it's about Elizabeth Woodville. I haven't finished it just yet, even though I already KNEW about the two princes in the tower. How correct is her information? In it, she (as Queen Elizabeth) states that if Richard III was already to be King, why would he murder Edward V? She names a few others with better motives for the murders. I'm just.. putting this out here.
To all these people accusing Henry VII of the murders, he was in exile in France at the time, and had little to achieve through the murders. Even with them dead, he would still be an obscure, penniless exile. Richard III alone had the strongest motive, and he was one of the few who had access to the Princes.
The only argument most Ricardians have to "prove" the "innocence" of Richard III is the whole "Tudor Propaganda" one. Sorry, but they need to do better than that.
@Lizzie9176 Although Henry Tudor personally could not have done it.. his mother was plotting with Buckingham etc..married to Stanley. Those men had influence, especially Buckingham who could have ordered it done. Buckingham himself had a claim to the throne and would have benefited from it looking like Richard did it.+ Richard obv. would have known that if something were to happen to his nephews, people would hate him. It would make more sense if he had them killed, to make it look like they -
@Nicollie1062 Sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that Margaret Beaufort had little to actually gain from the deaths of the Princes. She would merely be putting her sworn enemy on the throne, not her son (who's obscure claim was just as obscure, whether or not the boys lived). The effort of killing them was well and truly disproportionate to the end result. I mean, good heavens, I know Margaret Beaufort is weirdly unpopular, but does that make her capable of murder?
@Lizzie9176 There are plenty of reasons for Richard to hush up the deaths of the Princes, too. Don't forget, he never confirmed, nor denied it. There was just a big fat silence. If he could just have proved that they were alive, then he would have silenced everyone, but, he did not.
All of the evidence points to Richard, and I personally am satisfied that he did. All other theories are just clutching at straws.
@Lizzie9176 Actually, she did have something to gain. If Henry Tudor were to beat Richard..the Princes would still be a viable threat. By getting rid of them - the only thing standing in their way would be Richard. She wouldn't be putting Richard on the throne, he was already King legally. After the Princes are dead - her son with the obscure claim could take advantage of the hatred towards Richard and move in to take the throne. Buckingham had the same motive. That's my view. Cheers.
@Lizzie9176 cont'd - got sick and died. There would be a funeral etc..just like with Henry VI. He would have known that if they just suddenly disappeared, the blame would go on him. He would know that his enemies would use that against him. Those are my thoughts..aside from the usual "Tudor propoganda" lol. Take care. Cheers!
Fuck you all Richard was innocent, you're just being taken in by Tudor propaganda and shakespearean lies. Shakespeare would have you believe Anne Boleyn was sorry that Henry laid eyes on her and that Henry never cut off her head. Also He would have you believe that poor Clarence was innocent, forgetting about his betrayals and treason. You forget Richard had a shinning reputation and was well loved, so much so that some of those who betrayed him at bosworth were killed by angry mobs.
its times like thise in history i wish i could travel back in time id warn the boys and get them out and take them to safty but maybe historys not to be tampred with sadly
You obviously misunderstood me. Maybe, the reality of 1483 you would find would be completely different. And even if the Tudor account were true, it is not that the princes had lack in someone telling them to get out. How would you or anyone have helped them get out? You could do nothing that those present there could not do already...
This reminds me of Anna Anderson claiming to be Anastasia, it's not proven, you can't help but wonder, sometimes these people are trying to achieve fame, and sometimes they are real and they've been in hiding until the right time to come out, I don't know anything's possible.
We can't blame anyone for what happened, it was most likely Richard III, because they were the only thing standing between him and the throne as they were the sons of the first born son. But there's no proof, and there probably never will be.
I have just watched this movie. Can someone explain it to me. I didn't understand the ending. Was the pretender a real son of Edward the 4th or not ? Didn't understand the role of Margaret the mother of Henry VII. Please someone expain.
this particular clip is just a clip, but it is a clip of a MOVIE.
considering i have it on DVD, and have watched it many times, i'd say i'm definitely correct. you know, since i have the DVD and it's clearly a movie and all...
@sprinklefriend It's not a movie, just because you have on DVD does not mean it's a movie. How ignorant and retarded can you be?! . . You classless commoner. I hope you burn in hell.
wow, you have some serious issues. i hope you seek help. anyone who would start name-calling and blow up at someone online, who would get that upset over nothing, needs help immediately.
and although some things on DVD aren't movies, THIS IS. i don't know why you insist that it isn't, but that's your choice.
i have no interest in fighting with you. my ONLY intention in responding to your comment initially was just to let you know that it IS in fact a movie. that's all.
i've got no idea why you have gone off on me, nor do i care.
say whatever you want. call me whatever you want. it doesn't bother me & isn't worth my time or energy.
i'm officially done arguing with you. if you come up with something intelligent to say, then let me know.
Could you explain the movie to me. I didn't really understand the ending. Was the pretender real or fake ? What was the role of Margaret, the mother of Henry the Seventh? What was the role of Thomas More ???? How did the Grand Duchess of Burgundy know this was her nephew ?
I'm so utterly sick of people pigeon-holeing Richard III as a child muderer. It's sick. He was a great ruler for the time he was king and no murderer. That goes to Henry VII.
Sadly, when Henry VII-what's the old saying? History is written by the winners...enough said.
everh heard of comtempory evidence? then you will know that Richard III was indeed more likely to have ordered the murders, he could of paraded the children through london to prove his innocence, but he didnt, because he was guilty.
my personal belief is based on the contempory evidence we have available to us. there is no emotion in my beliefs unlike yours. alm yourself down dear,
People can say what they want and say "it's my personal belife and al that, but in my heart I belive a million percent that the Duke of Buckingham was responsible, not Richard.
@zenguy22 forgive me, but, Henry VII became King because no-one was left. Richard III had Titulus Regulus created to make Edward V and Richard, Duke of York illegitimate and STOLE the throne for himself and then, Henry VII killed him, took the throne, removed the illegitimacy and is an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II
No, Henry became king because he won a battle and his men killed the rightful king. Sure, that the princes were allegedly or actually dead helped him win support (but less in 1485 then in 1483) but there were other heirs to Richard, with better claims than Tudor. And if the princes lived, that would not have kept Tudor from mounting the throne due to his conquest.
@zenguy22 indeed richard was ok in my book but its not fair to him that everyone is quick to point the finger at the man because believe it or not there were many more ppl who hated the rivers family and such. but *rheotorically speaking* if richard did kill the kids wouldnt he have produced the bodies on display as his brother did along time ago with the earl of warwick? in a way i can see richard not to blame but may have known something or try to prevent it
the boys looked like girls but that was the style then i guess i hope their both at peace now in heavenn with all the other children who were taken away from us before their time
aaww that was so sad about those poor kids that Richard is a child murdering asshole id compare these boys murder to Jonbet ramsey shocking and agein innicont kids are the victims
@freacls I agree with you. Richard III could've been the boys protectorate as Edward Seymour was for young Edward VI, then he could've been the real power behind the throne until they came of age.. but no he had to get rid of them the bastard!
@HistoryLover1550 yeah i often wonderd what made him do it the kids were his own flesh and blood he must have had a heart of stone to kill his little innicont nephews if those boys were my nephews is protect whem with my life
@freacls I agree with you i'd do the same. Some people will put ambition before their own families not caring if it makes them unhasppy or leads to the downfall of a member, the Boleyns being a infamous example.
@HistoryLover1550 yeah i know i think it was pure greed and jeliousy that made Richard kill those to boys yet their mom should hav never let them go in the first place really
@freacls What was Elizabeth Woodville supposed to do? Edward V was being taken to the Tower to prepare for his coronation. This was perfectly normal, and every single King of England had done this. How was Woodville to know that her sons would be murdered? There was nothing Woodville could do to change the fact that her son was the new King, either. Whatever happened, it had nothing to do with her.
@Lizzie9176 well as he was still a child she should have went with him to look after him though he was a king at the end of the day he was a young child who still needed his mum
Apparently, the "mum" didn't think he needed her presence when the father was alive. She was living at the royal court at Westminster, while her son, the Prince of Wales, had his own court in Ludlow.
@mainsqueeze1977 i guess pareting was diffrent back then but he was still a child every 12 year old needs a mother figure and i remeber readingthat he had his own place i think they looked apone 12 year year olds diffrent back then Edwars would be seen as an audult whist todaywed see him as a kid
Repeating it doesn't make your claim better. The mum wasn't with her child (he stayed in Wales, she in Westmintser) before he became King and he was even younger then. And yes, a twelve-year old boy was almost an adult at the time.
But Edward (V) had only a few years before coming of age and had been raised as a Woodville. Richard feared that after the end of his protectorship, that clan would return to power and have their revenge. Even further, he feared that their every move would be for his removal (just as previous protectors had been ousted and killed) - and such moves started the moment Edward IV was dead. BTW, disinheriting them is not the same as killing them.
Sorry, but this is wrong. Even if Richard did not have them killed (and let us face it, he had every reason to do so), Edward V was the eldest son of Richard's elder brother Edward IV, and for biological reasons, there is no doubt that Elizabeth Woodville (Edward IV's wife) was his mother. While I agree that Mary I gets a bad rap versus Elizabeth I, there is much less debate about the culpability of Richard III.
What is it that's wrong? There is no doubt that Ed4 and Elizabeth were parents to Ed5 and his brother. But still, if there marriage was invalid because of Ed4's double dealing ... sure, it also was a pretext for Richard taking the throne but it was a move that was not unreasonable - to save the country from another unstable minority reign with subsequent backlash.
But was this not the purpose of regents? To safeguard the throne until the rightful monarch reached his majority? The problem with England is that it did not believe at that time in appointing women even to the regency. Had it done so, Elizabeth Woodville would have been regent, and the princes would have been safe. I mean, it was not like France, whose Salic Law prevented women from attaining any position of rule, even as regents.
England had no regents at all. (France however had female regents.) Liz W'ville imagined herself as a regent one but this would only have meant disaster and end to the Plantagenets, given her record. And she didn't actually begin the events of spring 1483 with moves indicating a noble and fair approach. You cannot at the same time insist on the supposedly clear-cut sucession of the crown but then chose to set aside other rules, such as Ed4's will and the protectorship.
"and the princes would have been safe" - this really irks me. Certainly, it is neither good nor nice if human beings are killed (if they were, which I in the end believe they were) - but these two "boys" (actually a boy and and almost grown-up) are not more valuable than others. You say, they would have been save. Others would not have been save under "regent" Liz, both because of the W'villes possessiveness and because of the danger of renewed civil war.
PS. Which brings me back to vilification: Henry4 killed his cousin Richard2, Henry5 killed thousands in France, Ed4 killed Henry6, Warwick, Montague, several Somersets (all related) and last not least his own brother. Henry7 killed his cousin-in-law and may more, Henry8 killed the rest, two of his wives (for "treason") and destroyed half the country's infrastructure etc. But somehow Richard is supposed to be "Dick the Bad" and "the princes's life" the most valuable thing in the world.
Culpabality? For what? Elizabeth and Mary (a Tudor after all, though the most human of the bunch) each had more people killed in a month than Richard in a lifetime. Not to speak of their monster of a father. And I haven't even started that the Tudors' measures had a much deeper impact in meddling with the Englishmen's lives.
What annoys me is this constant reducing of Richard the man to nothing more than the question of the princes, as if there was nothing else of importance.
I respect your opinion, I truly do, and I certainly am NOT excusing ANY of the Tudors. However, unless Elizabeth Woodville cheated on Edward IV, then Edward V WAS the rightful heir of Richard III. And what about the modus operandi? Richard needed the princes out of the way in order to legitimately secure the throne.
I respect yours too but it is simply not that easy. Ed5 was Ed4's biological son - no dispute about that. But whether he was legitimate - a prequisite for being King - depends on the status of his parents' marriage. And if that was impinged on by an earlier match, there would be no legal marriage and hence no legal heir. Furthermore, events suggest against Richard being that ambitious that he sought the throne for himself from day one. Rather, he increasingly became aware of how unstable his ...
... his rule as Protector would be (also his legitimate right which the W'villes tried to usurp) and what this meant both for his future and for the stability of the country. Ed4's pre-contract gave him the legal means to set the children aside and made him lawful king. He did this with the consent of lords and commons. I don't see what the fuss is about.
why didnt there mother try to find them!!! didnt she care they had dissapeared!!!!!!!!
TheBeauty115 1 month ago
I am crying right now from watching this what happend to those boys makes me sick its just horrible they did nothing wrong they were just kids its awful if i had been alive when they dissapeared I would have risked anything to find out who did it I want to murder the people who did this!!!!!!!!!!! I HATE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheBeauty115 1 month ago
im in yr 8 and im doing a report about the princes in the tower and i gotta say that i hav learnt a lot from the video and all these comments thnx:)
Diehardnow2142 3 months ago
Well, I'm in Year 8 now so I'm doing the Tudor monarchs, I don't care much about this anymore...
meglovesJessieJ 4 months ago
I only watched this because I'm the saddest person in the class because I am the only one who enjoys history and I was intrugued by this topic. I'm only in year 7, but I think I have used the widest amount of sources possible for a person of my age. In our lessons we have tried to solve this mystery and have gone into deep depths. I am still keen on finding out more- and I have now made myself keen to be a historian, because of cases like this. I still don't think I should judge Richard yet.
meglovesJessieJ 8 months ago
READ COMMENT BELOW BEFORE READING THIS:
of the Tudors. Lesson learned: Richard had upset the barons, therefore, he was not a good king.
meglovesJessieJ 8 months ago
All of the people saying that Richard III was so fantastic and was a good king obviously haven't been paying attention in their history lessons. The battle of Bosworth is evidence that the braons didn't want Richard III to be king because they didn't agree with him saying that he passed obsurd laws and made them pay too much tax. At the Battle of Bosworth Richard had an army twice the size of Henry's. Now, at that moment the Stanley family had turned up and decided to take the side ...
meglovesJessieJ 8 months ago
@meglovesJessieJ Yeah Stanley is a treasonous swine..and Richard was unbelievably brave during that battle.
Nicollie1062 4 months ago
I love Richard III. He was the only real man on the battlefield that day.
Nicollie1062 8 months ago
Poor kids, it's really too bad Edward IV didn't have a longer reign so Edward V could've attained his majority.
spad3dfx 9 months ago
There are so many bogus cases of people claiming to be children who had died years before so as to secure a particular fortune and-or position: Anna Anderson who claimed to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia (the youngest daughter of the last Czar), and even Lorraine Kramer claiming to be Loraine Allison, the only First Class child to die on the Titanic. The problem is, does anyone really change that much (especially in just a few years) that no one can recognize them at all?
telamon2011 9 months ago
Has anyone read The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory? (dunno if I spelled her name right) But it's about Elizabeth Woodville. I haven't finished it just yet, even though I already KNEW about the two princes in the tower. How correct is her information? In it, she (as Queen Elizabeth) states that if Richard III was already to be King, why would he murder Edward V? She names a few others with better motives for the murders. I'm just.. putting this out here.
AnneARcTiCa 1 year ago
To all these people accusing Henry VII of the murders, he was in exile in France at the time, and had little to achieve through the murders. Even with them dead, he would still be an obscure, penniless exile. Richard III alone had the strongest motive, and he was one of the few who had access to the Princes.
The only argument most Ricardians have to "prove" the "innocence" of Richard III is the whole "Tudor Propaganda" one. Sorry, but they need to do better than that.
Lizzie9176 1 year ago
@Lizzie9176 Although Henry Tudor personally could not have done it.. his mother was plotting with Buckingham etc..married to Stanley. Those men had influence, especially Buckingham who could have ordered it done. Buckingham himself had a claim to the throne and would have benefited from it looking like Richard did it.+ Richard obv. would have known that if something were to happen to his nephews, people would hate him. It would make more sense if he had them killed, to make it look like they -
Nicollie1062 4 months ago
@Nicollie1062 Sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that Margaret Beaufort had little to actually gain from the deaths of the Princes. She would merely be putting her sworn enemy on the throne, not her son (who's obscure claim was just as obscure, whether or not the boys lived). The effort of killing them was well and truly disproportionate to the end result. I mean, good heavens, I know Margaret Beaufort is weirdly unpopular, but does that make her capable of murder?
Lizzie9176 4 months ago
@Lizzie9176 There are plenty of reasons for Richard to hush up the deaths of the Princes, too. Don't forget, he never confirmed, nor denied it. There was just a big fat silence. If he could just have proved that they were alive, then he would have silenced everyone, but, he did not.
All of the evidence points to Richard, and I personally am satisfied that he did. All other theories are just clutching at straws.
Lizzie9176 4 months ago
@Lizzie9176 Actually, she did have something to gain. If Henry Tudor were to beat Richard..the Princes would still be a viable threat. By getting rid of them - the only thing standing in their way would be Richard. She wouldn't be putting Richard on the throne, he was already King legally. After the Princes are dead - her son with the obscure claim could take advantage of the hatred towards Richard and move in to take the throne. Buckingham had the same motive. That's my view. Cheers.
Nicollie1062 4 months ago
@Lizzie9176 cont'd - got sick and died. There would be a funeral etc..just like with Henry VI. He would have known that if they just suddenly disappeared, the blame would go on him. He would know that his enemies would use that against him. Those are my thoughts..aside from the usual "Tudor propoganda" lol. Take care. Cheers!
Nicollie1062 4 months ago
for what its worth.....i believe the duke of buckingham killed those kids
Tekirai 1 year ago
Fuck you all Richard was innocent, you're just being taken in by Tudor propaganda and shakespearean lies. Shakespeare would have you believe Anne Boleyn was sorry that Henry laid eyes on her and that Henry never cut off her head. Also He would have you believe that poor Clarence was innocent, forgetting about his betrayals and treason. You forget Richard had a shinning reputation and was well loved, so much so that some of those who betrayed him at bosworth were killed by angry mobs.
Medusa0999 1 year ago
@Medusa0999 No one's going by Shakespeare. He was playwright, not a historian. Like Michael Hirst et al today, Shakespeare took liberties.
Who else had the motive, and the means to kill the Princes besides Richard?
Lizzie9176 1 year ago
its times like thise in history i wish i could travel back in time id warn the boys and get them out and take them to safty but maybe historys not to be tampred with sadly
freacls 1 year ago
@freacls
You'd probably be surprise, if you travelled back in time.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 yeah maybe but i think id be like a ghost to them and wouldnt be able to help them theyd freak out if they seen me
freacls 10 months ago
@freacls
You obviously misunderstood me. Maybe, the reality of 1483 you would find would be completely different. And even if the Tudor account were true, it is not that the princes had lack in someone telling them to get out. How would you or anyone have helped them get out? You could do nothing that those present there could not do already...
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
so sad the 2 little princes were so cute to
freacls 1 year ago
Comment removed
freacls 1 year ago
This reminds me of Anna Anderson claiming to be Anastasia, it's not proven, you can't help but wonder, sometimes these people are trying to achieve fame, and sometimes they are real and they've been in hiding until the right time to come out, I don't know anything's possible.
mckfrr 1 year ago
We can't blame anyone for what happened, it was most likely Richard III, because they were the only thing standing between him and the throne as they were the sons of the first born son. But there's no proof, and there probably never will be.
mckfrr 1 year ago
@mckfrr True, and there r other possibilities, yet there's no proof supporting the theories that they might've been released etc.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
one year later the history of disney the hunchback of notre dame {or notre dame of paris of victor hugo}
selenedcs 2 years ago
Edward V, prince of Wales and his younger brother, Richard, 1st Duke of York and 1st Duke of Norfork. *Sigh* Their story is a sad one.
gOtHiCxAnGeLxox 2 years ago 3
I have just watched this movie. Can someone explain it to me. I didn't understand the ending. Was the pretender a real son of Edward the 4th or not ? Didn't understand the role of Margaret the mother of Henry VII. Please someone expain.
JohnHistorian 1 year ago
I feel sorry for Edward...they suffocated him first then buried both of them... :'(
It was their Uncle, Richard III who who paid someone to kill them..... :'( :'(
krisjose1110 2 years ago
LOVE this movie... was looking for a documentary when i clicked on this, and it's the exact movie i'm watching right now!
sprinklefriend 2 years ago
@sprinklefriend It's not a movie. Silly buffoon.
TheHumanShark 2 years ago
umm, yes, it IS a movie.
this particular clip is just a clip, but it is a clip of a MOVIE.
considering i have it on DVD, and have watched it many times, i'd say i'm definitely correct. you know, since i have the DVD and it's clearly a movie and all...
...silly buffoon.
sprinklefriend 2 years ago
@sprinklefriend It's not a movie, just because you have on DVD does not mean it's a movie. How ignorant and retarded can you be?! . . You classless commoner. I hope you burn in hell.
TheHumanShark 2 years ago
wow, you have some serious issues. i hope you seek help. anyone who would start name-calling and blow up at someone online, who would get that upset over nothing, needs help immediately.
and although some things on DVD aren't movies, THIS IS. i don't know why you insist that it isn't, but that's your choice.
how ignorant and retarded can YOU be?!
LOL.
sprinklefriend 2 years ago
@sprinklefriend You are, clearly.
TheHumanShark 2 years ago
i have no interest in fighting with you. my ONLY intention in responding to your comment initially was just to let you know that it IS in fact a movie. that's all.
i've got no idea why you have gone off on me, nor do i care.
say whatever you want. call me whatever you want. it doesn't bother me & isn't worth my time or energy.
i'm officially done arguing with you. if you come up with something intelligent to say, then let me know.
sprinklefriend 2 years ago
@sprinklefriend
Could you explain the movie to me. I didn't really understand the ending. Was the pretender real or fake ? What was the role of Margaret, the mother of Henry the Seventh? What was the role of Thomas More ???? How did the Grand Duchess of Burgundy know this was her nephew ?
JohnHistorian 1 year ago
im doin a project on this 4 history. :)
ilovemusicandvids 2 years ago
I'm so utterly sick of people pigeon-holeing Richard III as a child muderer. It's sick. He was a great ruler for the time he was king and no murderer. That goes to Henry VII.
Sadly, when Henry VII-what's the old saying? History is written by the winners...enough said.
zenguy22 3 years ago 13
everh heard of comtempory evidence? then you will know that Richard III was indeed more likely to have ordered the murders, he could of paraded the children through london to prove his innocence, but he didnt, because he was guilty.
sjfriend 3 years ago
Bullshit of bullshit! Even now, almost 600 years later, your letting Tudor propaganda dictate history.
zenguy22 3 years ago 8
no, im letting evidence dictate history, you my friend only have personal belief.
sjfriend 3 years ago
Yeah and your personal belief is based on lies.
zenguy22 3 years ago
my personal belief is based on the contempory evidence we have available to us. there is no emotion in my beliefs unlike yours. alm yourself down dear,
sjfriend 3 years ago
How DARE you tell me to calm down!!!
Just kiding. ;-)
People can say what they want and say "it's my personal belife and al that, but in my heart I belive a million percent that the Duke of Buckingham was responsible, not Richard.
zenguy22 3 years ago 2
please elaborate, in PM if u like .
sjfriend 3 years ago
@sjfriend Evidence isn't always the answer. Believe me.
TheHumanShark 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zenguy22 their bodies have been found!!! and they were murdered not the way that henry the VII said but they were murdered
TheAngzl1 9 months ago
God save king Richard! Long live king Richard! May the king live forever!
lb40713 2 years ago
Yes! May the lies die!
foofwolf22 2 years ago
@zenguy22 forgive me, but, Henry VII became King because no-one was left. Richard III had Titulus Regulus created to make Edward V and Richard, Duke of York illegitimate and STOLE the throne for himself and then, Henry VII killed him, took the throne, removed the illegitimacy and is an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II
Jamestopboy 1 year ago
@Jamestopboy
No, Henry became king because he won a battle and his men killed the rightful king. Sure, that the princes were allegedly or actually dead helped him win support (but less in 1485 then in 1483) but there were other heirs to Richard, with better claims than Tudor. And if the princes lived, that would not have kept Tudor from mounting the throne due to his conquest.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@zenguy22 indeed richard was ok in my book but its not fair to him that everyone is quick to point the finger at the man because believe it or not there were many more ppl who hated the rivers family and such. but *rheotorically speaking* if richard did kill the kids wouldnt he have produced the bodies on display as his brother did along time ago with the earl of warwick? in a way i can see richard not to blame but may have known something or try to prevent it
Tekirai 1 year ago
the boys looked like girls but that was the style then i guess i hope their both at peace now in heavenn with all the other children who were taken away from us before their time
freacls 3 years ago
@freacls Amen to that. The hairstyle was common at the time, even Hnery VIII's hair was that length in his youth.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
aaww that was so sad about those poor kids that Richard is a child murdering asshole id compare these boys murder to Jonbet ramsey shocking and agein innicont kids are the victims
freacls 3 years ago
@freacls It's tragic. Elizabeth Woodville should've sent her sons into hiding to protect them.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 yeah id have done the same too if they were my kids its tradig what happend to them so so sad RIP little ones
freacls 1 year ago
@freacls Amen, they could've taken some alias names and fled off to another country or live out in the country.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 thats what i so hope id hate to think that these little adorable boys were bruitly murderd
freacls 1 year ago
@freacls I agree with you. Richard III could've been the boys protectorate as Edward Seymour was for young Edward VI, then he could've been the real power behind the throne until they came of age.. but no he had to get rid of them the bastard!
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 yeah i often wonderd what made him do it the kids were his own flesh and blood he must have had a heart of stone to kill his little innicont nephews if those boys were my nephews is protect whem with my life
freacls 1 year ago
@freacls I agree with you i'd do the same. Some people will put ambition before their own families not caring if it makes them unhasppy or leads to the downfall of a member, the Boleyns being a infamous example.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 yeah i know i think it was pure greed and jeliousy that made Richard kill those to boys yet their mom should hav never let them go in the first place really
freacls 1 year ago
@freacls What was Elizabeth Woodville supposed to do? Edward V was being taken to the Tower to prepare for his coronation. This was perfectly normal, and every single King of England had done this. How was Woodville to know that her sons would be murdered? There was nothing Woodville could do to change the fact that her son was the new King, either. Whatever happened, it had nothing to do with her.
Lizzie9176 1 year ago
@Lizzie9176 well as he was still a child she should have went with him to look after him though he was a king at the end of the day he was a young child who still needed his mum
freacls 1 year ago
@freacls
Apparently, the "mum" didn't think he needed her presence when the father was alive. She was living at the royal court at Westminster, while her son, the Prince of Wales, had his own court in Ludlow.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 i guess pareting was diffrent back then but he was still a child every 12 year old needs a mother figure and i remeber readingthat he had his own place i think they looked apone 12 year year olds diffrent back then Edwars would be seen as an audult whist todaywed see him as a kid
freacls 10 months ago
Repeating it doesn't make your claim better. The mum wasn't with her child (he stayed in Wales, she in Westmintser) before he became King and he was even younger then. And yes, a twelve-year old boy was almost an adult at the time.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@Lizzie9176
She could have been less greedy during her husband's reign and the whole conflict could have been avoided.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
But Edward (V) had only a few years before coming of age and had been raised as a Woodville. Richard feared that after the end of his protectorship, that clan would return to power and have their revenge. Even further, he feared that their every move would be for his removal (just as previous protectors had been ousted and killed) - and such moves started the moment Edward IV was dead. BTW, disinheriting them is not the same as killing them.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 You've a point there.
HistoryLover1550 10 months ago
@HistoryLover1550
It was the princes that were bastards, not King Richard!!!
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 You're right.
HistoryLover1550 9 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977
Sorry, but this is wrong. Even if Richard did not have them killed (and let us face it, he had every reason to do so), Edward V was the eldest son of Richard's elder brother Edward IV, and for biological reasons, there is no doubt that Elizabeth Woodville (Edward IV's wife) was his mother. While I agree that Mary I gets a bad rap versus Elizabeth I, there is much less debate about the culpability of Richard III.
telamon2011 9 months ago
@telamon2011
What is it that's wrong? There is no doubt that Ed4 and Elizabeth were parents to Ed5 and his brother. But still, if there marriage was invalid because of Ed4's double dealing ... sure, it also was a pretext for Richard taking the throne but it was a move that was not unreasonable - to save the country from another unstable minority reign with subsequent backlash.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977
But was this not the purpose of regents? To safeguard the throne until the rightful monarch reached his majority? The problem with England is that it did not believe at that time in appointing women even to the regency. Had it done so, Elizabeth Woodville would have been regent, and the princes would have been safe. I mean, it was not like France, whose Salic Law prevented women from attaining any position of rule, even as regents.
telamon2011 9 months ago
England had no regents at all. (France however had female regents.) Liz W'ville imagined herself as a regent one but this would only have meant disaster and end to the Plantagenets, given her record. And she didn't actually begin the events of spring 1483 with moves indicating a noble and fair approach. You cannot at the same time insist on the supposedly clear-cut sucession of the crown but then chose to set aside other rules, such as Ed4's will and the protectorship.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@telamon2011
"and the princes would have been safe" - this really irks me. Certainly, it is neither good nor nice if human beings are killed (if they were, which I in the end believe they were) - but these two "boys" (actually a boy and and almost grown-up) are not more valuable than others. You say, they would have been save. Others would not have been save under "regent" Liz, both because of the W'villes possessiveness and because of the danger of renewed civil war.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
PS. Which brings me back to vilification: Henry4 killed his cousin Richard2, Henry5 killed thousands in France, Ed4 killed Henry6, Warwick, Montague, several Somersets (all related) and last not least his own brother. Henry7 killed his cousin-in-law and may more, Henry8 killed the rest, two of his wives (for "treason") and destroyed half the country's infrastructure etc. But somehow Richard is supposed to be "Dick the Bad" and "the princes's life" the most valuable thing in the world.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@telamon2011
Culpabality? For what? Elizabeth and Mary (a Tudor after all, though the most human of the bunch) each had more people killed in a month than Richard in a lifetime. Not to speak of their monster of a father. And I haven't even started that the Tudors' measures had a much deeper impact in meddling with the Englishmen's lives.
What annoys me is this constant reducing of Richard the man to nothing more than the question of the princes, as if there was nothing else of importance.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977
I respect your opinion, I truly do, and I certainly am NOT excusing ANY of the Tudors. However, unless Elizabeth Woodville cheated on Edward IV, then Edward V WAS the rightful heir of Richard III. And what about the modus operandi? Richard needed the princes out of the way in order to legitimately secure the throne.
telamon2011 9 months ago
I respect yours too but it is simply not that easy. Ed5 was Ed4's biological son - no dispute about that. But whether he was legitimate - a prequisite for being King - depends on the status of his parents' marriage. And if that was impinged on by an earlier match, there would be no legal marriage and hence no legal heir. Furthermore, events suggest against Richard being that ambitious that he sought the throne for himself from day one. Rather, he increasingly became aware of how unstable his ...
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
... his rule as Protector would be (also his legitimate right which the W'villes tried to usurp) and what this meant both for his future and for the stability of the country. Ed4's pre-contract gave him the legal means to set the children aside and made him lawful king. He did this with the consent of lords and commons. I don't see what the fuss is about.
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
I love this so much, but my taped copy didn't have the very beginning. Thank you for posting it!
DreameQueene 3 years ago
That Richard the III needs an asbo!
BRUTUALTRUTH 4 years ago
wow
KitsuneSeiSatou 4 years ago
I remember watching this on tv a couple of years ago and thinking it was brilliant. Thanks so much for posting!
vonkvetch 4 years ago