I doubt henry or Richard would have killed them themselves, u don't have to be in the country to have someone killed, possibly a better alibi.
Personally I don't either gave the order, both had to much to lose and not enough to gain by the murders. Margeret Beaufort however, historys original cruella deville, had prime motive, prime opportunity and she was that conniving enough to be able to do it.
Their sister is Henry the Eighth's mother, so that would make them Henry's Uncles. If they had lived, Edward's children would've been King, and not Henry the Eighth, but no Henry meant no Elizabeth, history really made sure Elizabeth I, Henry's daughter, and only Elizabeth would be the Queen.
Please someone explain this movie. I just watched it. Didn't understand if the pretender was real or not. What was the role of Henry VII's mother Margaret ??? Didn't understand the role of Thomas More either??? Anyone who has seen this movie please e-mail me and explain. I really did like the movie but see two explanation. I also watched the short documentary with the DVD.
@JohnHistorian Thomas More didn't come around to do anything until Henry the 8th, he was a very close advisor for the beginning of the regin but when he refused to say that Kathrine of Aragon's marriage to Henry was invaid he was exacuted
@randomstuff8991 Thanks for reply. From how someelse explained it to me, the two princes survived well into Henry VII reign and died imprisoned by Margaret Beaufort who found them in 1485. I guess until they do DNA testing on the bones they found in 1674 and maybe on the bones of Perkin Warbeck or his son we will not know until then. Thanks for reply. I loved the movie.
@RogieVixen REMEMBER, they went missing and were "killed" BEFORE henry VII was king. He wasn't even in England that that point! He was in exile, so, Richard III, as the only POSSIBLE person left, MUST have killed them!
@Jamestopboy Oh whoops! Lol. Wow, I'm forgetting all the facts It's been a while and I still haven't finished my Richard III book I bought all those yrs a go (it is very big however). Hmmm I always did believe it was Richard that did it, but I don't know any more. Better do more reading. Thanks for the reminder he wasn't in England (unless he sent someone to do it for him). I can't really see Henry VII doing it when he was king, but in the shadows beforehand if it was him.
@RogieVixen also, remember, Henry VII, removed the Titulus Regulus (the thing making Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, illegitimate) and married Elizabeth to cement his claim. It is unlikely that it was him. If it was, he would have been questioned on why he removed the Titulus Regulus, if he had ordered it the first time.
@Jamestopboy I just finished reading my Richard III and the Princes in the Tower book. Yeah, it makes sense it wasn't him for the reasons you've said. The only likely candidate is Richard. I guess that's the only answer likely. Unless it was a double accident that got covered up. I don't know. Reading that book, I'm even less certain it's him - but if it wasn't, then there's no one else ....
@Jamestopboy ok so if Richard killed them, Why was it when Henry became king and filed Richard's "crimes and misdeeds" (blackening his name to make himself look good) did he not openly blame him for murderering the princes? surely that would be the nail in the coffin for Richard?
@Medusa0999 IF Henry VII DID kill them which, he *DIDN'T*, He wouldn't have removed the Titulus Regulus, which made them legitimate again, so, It has to be Richard. Henry VII never openly stated it, because then, he would be accused of lying and be blamed for their deaths himself!
@Jamestopboy Henry may not have killed them, But his mother? margaret Beaufort was a scheming bitch who always tried to get Henry on the throne., she had dealings with Elizabeth Woodville and Buckingham at the time and also her husband was the prince's prime care taker. Tell me that an ambitious woman won't exploit that to her son on the throne.
@Medusa0999 1) Henry VII was NOT in England at the time, so, couldn't have killed them. I do not deny however, that Margaret Beaufort was an evil old hag!
2) Richard III was the LORD PROTECTOR for Edward V until he came of age.
3) Richard III had parliament create the Titulus Regulus to declare Edward V and Richard, Duke of York illegitimate, and thus, that made him the next-in-line.
4) Henry VII still had to deal with Richard after Edward V and Richard went missing. If he had done it (cont)
I don't think Henry did it but your reasons are invalid:
1) When is "at the time"? If Henry did it, he did it after defeating Richard. This leads to 4) You seem to be mistaken that anyone claims Henry did it in 1483 - certainly not.
2) True, but of no consequence to this.
3) RIchard was not made next-in-line, he was made King by the bastardy charge later ratified in Titulus. He was already King when he had the boys killed (if he did).
Henry had a motive, especially after reversing Titulus, which theoretically would have restored the princes to their rights. But Henry certainly did not do it, as it took him until 1502 to come up with a full account of how Richard did it, when Tyrell supposedly confessed. But that's only related by More. If Henry had killed the boys, he would have immediately have published a better, fully detailed story.
Not necessarily, though I am slightly leaning towards that conclusion. Still, Richard was a good king, his sucessor a miserable tyrant, not speak of the latter's monstruos son. PS. Time machines will never be invented and if with one you wouldn't be able to find out just like that.
@mainsqueeze1977 Yeah, and remember, Henry VII only had to take Richard out to get the throne. Henry VII succeeded because he killed Richard and then he killed off the rest of the plantagenets. If Richard HADN'T been such an ambitious little.... well, you get the picture, then maybe the Tudors wouldn't have succeeded.
@Jamestopboy Henry succeeded because of French support and the disloyalty of certain English lords, not because of any picture you are insinuating. Richard wasn't "ambitious", he went against the Woodvilles when he had no alternative and he took the throne to prevent them from ever coming back when he saw the opportunity. And Henry Tudor barely succeeded.
@Medusa0999 If he had done it, he still would have had to deal with Richard. Henry VII also repelled the act of Titulus Regulus, making Elizabeth of York, his wife, legitimate. Someone would have questioned his actions if he had been behind it.
To answer that question, you must first ask: Who benefitted by their death? First and foremost, their uncle, Richard of Gloucester. Edward V was the legal King of England, until Richard seized power; then the two boys vanished in the Tower of London, a royal residence. Who else would have dared? Richard III. Not the nicest uncle in the world!
@chaosfive55 But he had the boys bastardized and therefor barred from the throne. King Henry VII had more to gain. As long as the boys lived there would be another king the people could rally to if they did not like his rule. Remember, Henry won his crown he did not come by it in blood. In order to have a better claim he had to legitimize his wife's claim to the throne and thus legitimize the claim the boys had. He could not do this without knowing the boys were dead.
@asmodayose I agree :) Richard had declared them bastards, he really had no reason to kill them after that, but he still MAY have, since it wouldn't have had an entirely negative effect for his cause.
However, Henry's claim was through his wife, the princes' elder sister. He couldn't legitimize her claim without doing so to the princes', and this would mean that Edward should be king. But he wanted to be king himself, so he really HAD to get rid of them to secure his position.
I doubt henry or Richard would have killed them themselves, u don't have to be in the country to have someone killed, possibly a better alibi.
Personally I don't either gave the order, both had to much to lose and not enough to gain by the murders. Margeret Beaufort however, historys original cruella deville, had prime motive, prime opportunity and she was that conniving enough to be able to do it.
That is if they were killed at all....
Brickastley 1 year ago
Seeing how Elizabeth Woodville cried when the young man showed her his birthmark and knows the song she sang to Richard, I think he's the prince.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Their sister is Henry the Eighth's mother, so that would make them Henry's Uncles. If they had lived, Edward's children would've been King, and not Henry the Eighth, but no Henry meant no Elizabeth, history really made sure Elizabeth I, Henry's daughter, and only Elizabeth would be the Queen.
mckfrr 1 year ago
Yeah Henry VII probably did do it - I wouldn't put it past him.
Wow, the woman who plays the sister is bloody good.
RogieVixen 1 year ago
Please someone explain this movie. I just watched it. Didn't understand if the pretender was real or not. What was the role of Henry VII's mother Margaret ??? Didn't understand the role of Thomas More either??? Anyone who has seen this movie please e-mail me and explain. I really did like the movie but see two explanation. I also watched the short documentary with the DVD.
JohnHistorian 1 year ago
@JohnHistorian Thomas More didn't come around to do anything until Henry the 8th, he was a very close advisor for the beginning of the regin but when he refused to say that Kathrine of Aragon's marriage to Henry was invaid he was exacuted
randomstuff8991 1 year ago 2
@randomstuff8991
JohnHistorian 1 year ago
@randomstuff8991 Thanks for reply. From how someelse explained it to me, the two princes survived well into Henry VII reign and died imprisoned by Margaret Beaufort who found them in 1485. I guess until they do DNA testing on the bones they found in 1674 and maybe on the bones of Perkin Warbeck or his son we will not know until then. Thanks for reply. I loved the movie.
JohnHistorian 1 year ago
@RogieVixen REMEMBER, they went missing and were "killed" BEFORE henry VII was king. He wasn't even in England that that point! He was in exile, so, Richard III, as the only POSSIBLE person left, MUST have killed them!
Jamestopboy 1 year ago
@Jamestopboy Oh whoops! Lol. Wow, I'm forgetting all the facts It's been a while and I still haven't finished my Richard III book I bought all those yrs a go (it is very big however). Hmmm I always did believe it was Richard that did it, but I don't know any more. Better do more reading. Thanks for the reminder he wasn't in England (unless he sent someone to do it for him). I can't really see Henry VII doing it when he was king, but in the shadows beforehand if it was him.
RogieVixen 1 year ago
@RogieVixen also, remember, Henry VII, removed the Titulus Regulus (the thing making Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, illegitimate) and married Elizabeth to cement his claim. It is unlikely that it was him. If it was, he would have been questioned on why he removed the Titulus Regulus, if he had ordered it the first time.
Jamestopboy 1 year ago
@Jamestopboy I just finished reading my Richard III and the Princes in the Tower book. Yeah, it makes sense it wasn't him for the reasons you've said. The only likely candidate is Richard. I guess that's the only answer likely. Unless it was a double accident that got covered up. I don't know. Reading that book, I'm even less certain it's him - but if it wasn't, then there's no one else ....
RogieVixen 1 year ago
@Jamestopboy ok so if Richard killed them, Why was it when Henry became king and filed Richard's "crimes and misdeeds" (blackening his name to make himself look good) did he not openly blame him for murderering the princes? surely that would be the nail in the coffin for Richard?
Medusa0999 1 year ago
@Medusa0999 IF Henry VII DID kill them which, he *DIDN'T*, He wouldn't have removed the Titulus Regulus, which made them legitimate again, so, It has to be Richard. Henry VII never openly stated it, because then, he would be accused of lying and be blamed for their deaths himself!
Jamestopboy 1 year ago
@Jamestopboy Henry may not have killed them, But his mother? margaret Beaufort was a scheming bitch who always tried to get Henry on the throne., she had dealings with Elizabeth Woodville and Buckingham at the time and also her husband was the prince's prime care taker. Tell me that an ambitious woman won't exploit that to her son on the throne.
Medusa0999 1 year ago
@Medusa0999 1) Henry VII was NOT in England at the time, so, couldn't have killed them. I do not deny however, that Margaret Beaufort was an evil old hag!
2) Richard III was the LORD PROTECTOR for Edward V until he came of age.
3) Richard III had parliament create the Titulus Regulus to declare Edward V and Richard, Duke of York illegitimate, and thus, that made him the next-in-line.
4) Henry VII still had to deal with Richard after Edward V and Richard went missing. If he had done it (cont)
Jamestopboy 1 year ago
I don't think Henry did it but your reasons are invalid:
1) When is "at the time"? If Henry did it, he did it after defeating Richard. This leads to 4) You seem to be mistaken that anyone claims Henry did it in 1483 - certainly not.
2) True, but of no consequence to this.
3) RIchard was not made next-in-line, he was made King by the bastardy charge later ratified in Titulus. He was already King when he had the boys killed (if he did).
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@Jamestopboy
Henry had a motive, especially after reversing Titulus, which theoretically would have restored the princes to their rights. But Henry certainly did not do it, as it took him until 1502 to come up with a full account of how Richard did it, when Tyrell supposedly confessed. But that's only related by More. If Henry had killed the boys, he would have immediately have published a better, fully detailed story.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 Exactly. Thus, Richard did it.
When Time Machines are invented, we can find out and see who did it.
Jamestopboy 10 months ago
@Jamestopboy
Not necessarily, though I am slightly leaning towards that conclusion. Still, Richard was a good king, his sucessor a miserable tyrant, not speak of the latter's monstruos son. PS. Time machines will never be invented and if with one you wouldn't be able to find out just like that.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 Yeah, and remember, Henry VII only had to take Richard out to get the throne. Henry VII succeeded because he killed Richard and then he killed off the rest of the plantagenets. If Richard HADN'T been such an ambitious little.... well, you get the picture, then maybe the Tudors wouldn't have succeeded.
Jamestopboy 10 months ago
@Jamestopboy Henry succeeded because of French support and the disloyalty of certain English lords, not because of any picture you are insinuating. Richard wasn't "ambitious", he went against the Woodvilles when he had no alternative and he took the throne to prevent them from ever coming back when he saw the opportunity. And Henry Tudor barely succeeded.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@Medusa0999 If he had done it, he still would have had to deal with Richard. Henry VII also repelled the act of Titulus Regulus, making Elizabeth of York, his wife, legitimate. Someone would have questioned his actions if he had been behind it.
I rest my case.... Richard did it.
Jamestopboy 1 year ago
wassup,
this bloke is like super sexy
where has he been all of my life??
xxx
priyadi11 2 years ago
@priyadi11 You clearly know nothing about this and dared to comment on something you are evidently incompetent.
TheHumanShark 2 years ago
that laidie kind of scares me
...but i'm so interested into who killed the two princes...
dani102095 3 years ago 2
To answer that question, you must first ask: Who benefitted by their death? First and foremost, their uncle, Richard of Gloucester. Edward V was the legal King of England, until Richard seized power; then the two boys vanished in the Tower of London, a royal residence. Who else would have dared? Richard III. Not the nicest uncle in the world!
chaosfive55 2 years ago
@chaosfive55 But he had the boys bastardized and therefor barred from the throne. King Henry VII had more to gain. As long as the boys lived there would be another king the people could rally to if they did not like his rule. Remember, Henry won his crown he did not come by it in blood. In order to have a better claim he had to legitimize his wife's claim to the throne and thus legitimize the claim the boys had. He could not do this without knowing the boys were dead.
asmodayose 1 year ago
@asmodayose
chaosfive55 1 year ago
@asmodayose I agree :) Richard had declared them bastards, he really had no reason to kill them after that, but he still MAY have, since it wouldn't have had an entirely negative effect for his cause.
However, Henry's claim was through his wife, the princes' elder sister. He couldn't legitimize her claim without doing so to the princes', and this would mean that Edward should be king. But he wanted to be king himself, so he really HAD to get rid of them to secure his position.
fabziepie 1 year ago
did young Richard ofYork have a birth mark theni never heard about that and thats the Coventry Carol Richard is talking about
freacls 3 years ago 3