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

The Jury reaches its verdict on the guilt or innocence of King Richard The Third relating to the charge of the murder of the two princes in the tower.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• King Richard the Third
• King Richard III
• Richard third
• Richard III
• princes in the tower
• verdict by jury

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[blastforth]

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

[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.

[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.

[GeistDreams]

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

[bluebluedogbooks]

Thanks for uploading this. It was fascinating.



[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.