Princes In The Tower - DVD Clip "Birthmark"

The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 12 year-old King Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York has been the cause of speculation and fascination for over five centuries. In 1491, eight years after the Princes in the Tower were presumed murdered; a young man told an astonished world that he was Richard, back to claim the throne of England. Was this man Richard, Duke of York, or was he Perkin Warbeck, a brilliant imposter? There are many versions of what might have happened during his final interrogation in the Tower of London. This riveting drama presents one of them.

Available Now on DVD.
Product Info:
http://www.britishdvdcollection.com/product.asp?item=741952646891

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• King
• Edward
• V
• Richard
• Duke
• of
• York
• Tower
• Scandal
• History
• Mystery
• Murder
• England
• British
• Perkin
• Warbeck

[freacls]

did young Richard ofYork have a birth mark theni never heard about that and thats the Coventry Carol Richard is talking about

[randomstuff8991]

@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

[mainsqueeze1977]

@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.

[Jamestopboy]

@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.

[mainsqueeze1977]

@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.

[Jamestopboy]

@mainsqueeze1977 Exactly. Thus, Richard did it.

When Time Machines are invented, we can find out and see who did it.

[mainsqueeze1977]

@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]

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).

[Brickastley]

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....

[RogieVixen]

@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]

@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]

@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)