The Trial Of King Richard The Third - Verdict (22 - final)

[blastforth]

This program serves as an excellent tutorial on trial advocacy, professionalism and civility. Well done.

[TheSassyB]

Richard III was not a stupid man, he knew the Princes were of more value to him alive.

[DSDunlap72]

What's to say that the Princes WERE murdered? They may not have been seen in the Tower precincts after a certain time, but what is to say that they were not sent into the north of England and further educated there. For all we know, the two boys may have faded into the woodwork, become middle-level or even lower-level subjects, married, had children under different names, and their descendants may be around to this day.

[baraxor]

@DSDunlap72

In history, people are usually not content to be commoners (especially non-noble ones of modest fortune) if they believe taht they should have the throne by right.

There was no practical reason for either Richard III or Henry VII to allow the two princes to remain alive and thus jeopardize their claim to the throne.

[GeistDreams]

I enjoyed watching this VERY much. Thank you for uploading this.

[bluebluedogbooks]

Thanks for uploading this. It was fascinating.

[PoliticalPars]

What a wonderful treat to see this trial. Defense was terrific, although the prosecutor had his strengths as well. I am more convinced than before that Richard III was framed; by whom, I am uncertain. But I have always prepared the Plantagents over the Tudors. Many thanks for your uploading and all the comments during the proceedings.

[valentinejay]

@PoliticalPars Uploading this was a pleasure and a labour of love ;) Thank you for your comments - I enjoyed reading them very much.

[GREMLIN216]

Many thanks for taking the trouble to post all these videos. I agree that Starkey shouldn't have been called: he might have profited by the example of A L Rowse who made a bit of a fool of himself pontificating about a period where he had no expertise!

[alanth252]

Strange that the intrigues between the Lady Margaret (mother of Henry Tudor, later Henry VII), her husband Sir William Stanley (who betrayed Richard at Bosworth), and Buckingham, weren`t brought up. All three were in London at the time of Richard`s progress around the country. Lady Margaret herself is deep in the plot against Richard and is also a very plausible suspect for the alleged killing of the princes.

[Lizzie9176]

Thank you so much to the uploader. I was only four when this originally aired, and had never heard of it until I stumbled upon it the other day. Very, very interesting and informative.

I'm still undecided on Richard's guilt or innocence. After 527 years, I want to avoid making any judgement; but still wish to give Richard III the benefit of the doubt. Firmly on the fence, I know. But its' the best we can do considering the passage of time.

Again, thank you for uploading this. A real treat. :D...

[CalliopeWilde]

thanks for uploading this!

[sabine1470]

Regardless of the verdict the most likely explanation for the princes disapearence is that Richard had them murdered.

[valentinejay]

@sabine1470 Well, that was not the jury's decision, and this was judged on the even higher 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' , so it appears that Richard III can't win against some people.

[Simonc1952]

@sabine1470

"Regardless of the verdict"? Do you therefore also suggest "regardless of the evidence"? Why is it the "most likely explanation" despite the evidence? It is precisely this ill-informed nonsense that forms much of what passes for education these days. What would have proved it to you? Davna McCall hosting a video re-enactment?

[lb40713]

God save king Richard! May the king live forever!

Greetings from Finland.

[meesterperfect]

damn i wish i knew the truth!

but i think almost surely richard did it.

they were last seen in the summer of 83, we can assume they died then.

richards motives? avoid any future uprising regarding the boys.

why didnt he also murder georges son? because he was his wifes blood nephew.

its possible buckingham did it, but for whom?

to clear the path for himself or for henry tudor?

niether one could be secure with the crown if the boys were alive.

we'll never know i suppose

[valentinejay]

It's infuriating, isn't it! It is likely that the boys weren't killed in the tower at all. The custom in those days was to send children of noble breeding to a great house to be educated, and it is very possible that Richard sent the boys to be educated with his own bastard son John of Gloucester (murdered by Henry VII) and his other nephew, Edward of Warwick (also murdered by Henry VII). I would read a few books on the subject if you are interested - try Paul Murray Kendall or Annette Carson.

[sabine1470]

The reason that he didn't murder George's son was that unlike Edward V and prince Richard, George's son didn't have much backing. Should Edward V have escaped he had his fathers household knights and support of the general population. Edward -George's son ( the son of a dead traitor) had none of this.

[MsTruNorth]

It seems to me Buckingham (Constable of England) is the likely killer of the Princes. His quick switch to the Tudor camp after the boys' death, suggests his fear of what Richard would do to him when Richard discovered the boys had been murdered and probably a promised reward from Henry Tudor. The willingness of the boys' mother to release her daughters into Richard's protection suggests she suspected Buckingham had killed the Princes in a deal with Henry.

[MsTruNorth]

It does look as though Henry Tudor (Henry VII) arranged the death of the Princes (using the only man in the kingdom Brockridge?) who had unquestioned access to the Tower of London. Brockridge (?) soon after joined Henry's camp (this suggests a reward or at least fear of what Richard III would do when he figured out Rockridge (?) had done it. Makes then, also, that the boy's mother would have released her daughters to Richard's protection if she suspected her boys were done by the Tudor camp.

[valentinejay]

I wish that you could think of the real name of 'Brockridge' - it is certainly not Sir Robert Brackenbury, the Constable of the Tower - he died fighting for Richard at Bosworth in 1485 and was a decent and highly trusted man. I am assuming that you are referring to Buckingham who may well have been working for Henry Tudor. You make some very interesting points but I just wanted to clear up the matter of Sir Robert Brackenbury's unquestioned loyalty to King Richard.

[MsTruNorth]

@valentinejoy Yes, I meant Buckingham.

[MsTruNorth]

@valentinejay Yes, I meant Buckingham. I imagine the "deal" between Henry Tudor (Henry VII) and Buckingham (who was in line for the thrown) went something like: "Do we really want the turmoil the country has known with a boy King on the throne and a weak Protector? You'd (Buckingham) be a target, as heir) of anyone trying to stabalize the kingdom by removing the children. Let me offer you my protection, if you see the wisdom in joining our cause to strengthen the kingdom."

[valentinejay]

Yes, I can certainly see Henry's fine Italian hand behind all of this somewhere, plus his very ambitious mother, Margaret Beaufort who I am inclined to think was the real brains behind Henry VII's reign. Also, apropos of Buckingham, Richard called him 'the most untrue creature living' before his (Buckingham's) execution. If you have not read Paul Murray Kendall's excellent book, I most highly recommend it to you. Many thanks for your interesting comments.

[MsTruNorth]

@valentinejoy Yeah, especially in light of the fact that Buckingham (Henry Stafford, that he may be remembered by name with infamy) was executed by Richard III for Stafford/Buckingham's part in supporting Hendry Tudor's (Hedry VII's) attempt to overthrow Richard III. Henry Tudor's remarks seem to speak to a very deep knowledge of just how duplicious and ruthless Buckingham/Stafford was. It's a pity the Queen spends any time in a palace bearing his name.,

[valentinejay]

Lol - sadly my grandmother's maiden name was Buckingham ;)

[bukattingi]

I have watched this over the last two days and really enjoyed it. I can remember seeing bits of it when it was originally aired though it had completely left my head.

I must say though, that in spite of being a Yorkshireman, and enjoying the testimony of Anne Sutton, who I found extremely foxy, I was surprised that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favour of the defence. If I had been on the jury I would have argued for a guilty verdict.

[MsTruNorth]

@bukattingi The first time I watched this trial, I concluded Buckingham did it and that Richard was innocent. On viewing it a second time, I'm no more certain who did it, but less convinced Richard did not. What would help crystalize the matter is a timeline of who did what when. If Richard's intent from the outset were to commit a coup, I believe he would have sent both boys to the Tower right off, rather than just Edward. Richard appears to be preparing for Ed. V's coronation, and then...

[MsTruNorth]

@bukattingi (continung timeline request): bastardization of the Princes by Parliament; coronation of Richard III; rumours of the Princes' deaths surface; Richard offers to marry Elizabeth W.'s eldest daughter; Elizabeth W. agrees to marriage and releases all her daughters into Richard's "protection". Depending on what the series of events was, Richard could have intended to be a Protector and coronate Ed V, until Eliz. W. made an alliance with Henry T.

[MsTruNorth]

@bukattingi When Eliz. W. made an alliance with Henry T., two scenarios seem possible: 1) Richard decided he needed to remove the Woodville threat by removing their claim to the throne (i.e., the Princes). This would leave it a slug out between Richard and Henry T.; or 2) Buckingham encouraged Eliz. W to make the alliance with Henry T while promising her that he had already done so or would be doing so himself shortly (present Richard with a two-front war). Buck's hidden agenda was...(more)

[MsTruNorth]

@bukattingi (Buckingham's agenda, continued) Buck's agenda may have been to have Henry T poised in an alliance to attack Richard from the east, while Buck attacked from the west, after Buck. had used his authority as Constable to enter the Tower with henchmen and murder his competition for the throne (the Princes). Buck's hope was that Henry T. would then remove the only remaining obstacle (Richard III), and Buck could then overwhelm Henry T. in battle by hook or crooked arrangement. King Buck

[bukattingi]

I have watched this over the last two days and really enjoyed it , particularly the testimony of Anne Sutton who I considered foxy.

I remember seeing a bit of it on television all those years ago but it had long gone from my head.

I have to say though, in spite of being a Yorkshireman that had I been on the jury I would have argued for a guilty verdict, and that they returned a unanimous verdict in favour of the defence does nothing for my confidence in our judicial system.

[orlyon76]

Thanks so much for uploading, i have been wanting to see this for years!

[hollygolightly66]

Thank you so much for posting. Brilliant and educational way to spend my Sunday morning.

[valentinejay]

I am so pleased that you enjoyed this, Hollygolightly ;) It was a lengthy process uploading all of these clips, but it has been worth it.

[MsTruNorth]

@valentinejay Yeah, thanks so much for taking the time it must have required to load all these clips. It has helped provide a lot of important information to many in a very succinct fashion. I think it's never too late for justice to be served (but better never late haha). Thanks for your help. :)

[valentinejay]

I started uploading this trial on Good Friday last year - it seemed like an appropriate time to commemorate King Richard III's memory. He has been so viciously maligned by the historians who slavishly follow the Tudor Myth.

[antoninus138]

I'm very sorry to hear that Mr Du Cann is dead - he was magnificent and clearly knew how to handle a hostile witness.

If you watched when a defense witness commented that medieval kings required coronation and that Starkey's assertion only applied to HIS field of "interest"- Tudors - not neading coronation you see Starkey shake his head. He took the whole thing so seriously! "Elizabeth of blessed memory" Come on, really? I have no respect for him. Why prosecution not get a medieval expert?

[valentinejay]

Richard Dillon Lott Du Cann QC died in August, 1994 aged only 65 and a google search will give more information about this most gifted man.

Good point about 'Elizabeth of Blessed Memory' - very over the top, Antoninus!!

[antoninus138]

And that mincing little fairy is now a "respected" TV historian - Starkey. Fabulous when the defense lawyer called him "Dr Stacy" and "Mr Starkey". His head seems also to have expanded? Anyway, from bad historians rich and famous men grow.

[valentinejay]

The trouble is Dr. Starkey is not an expert on King Richard III's era - he is more into the middle and late Tudor period. His 'evidence' on the last of the Plantaganet Kings was distorted and extremely biased - why he was even allowed as a witness is a total mystery. He has definite Tudor leanings, being all wrapped up in Henry VIII in particular. I thought that the late, highly respected Richard Du Cann (Defence Counsel) handled him beautifully ;)

[MsTruNorth]

Yeah, I was watching Du Cann (Defence Counsel) and could easily see that what words and when to interject them in order to maintain control of the image being painted for the jury. That is a fine skill that I'd think only comes with much courtroom experience. He managed to maintain enough clarity in the courtroom so that one could sort out who truly did have motive and opportunity and access. I think Richard III was innocent.

[BRUTUALTRUTH]

"Mincing little fairy" re Dr Starkey! When I read that I nearly got sick with laughter hee hee!

Old Starkey hated the new Tudors series on the BBC as the medieval ass bandit was not consulted!

[DoctorPlausible]

That was great.

I don't think the jury could have reached any other verdict, if "not guilty" means "probably not" (which may well be the case always). What struck me as particularly poignant, if true, was the gradual distortion of Richard's physical image as a result of defamation by southerners. When public opinion conspires against an individual, justice itself can become distorted.

I think now I'm going to watch the whole trial again. Thank you very much for so much fun, ValentineJay.

[valentinejay]

You are very welcome, Doctor Plausible. Looking at 10 minute segments every 24 hours distorts it quite a bit, so a second viewing should be extremely rewarding.

Thank you so much for your comments and ratings over the past three weeks - it is, and has been, very much appreciated ;)