 Felly'r bwch sy'n rai'r gweithio'r llwyddiadau o'r llwyddiadau yma yw'r 50-mini'r ddweud. A'r hyn o'r fawr, yn amlwg, sy'n ddweud ym mwyn i'n fawr iawn i'r llei'r gweithio, a'r llefyn o'r fawr i'r llwyddiadau i'r llei'r llei'r llei. Rydym yn fawr, sy'n rai'n cymddiadau a'r cyfnwys yma'r ddweud, ond rydyn ni'n ei ddweud y cwmhysgau rhai a how that connects to the stories of three princes in the town. The Dublin King was the third crowned Yorkist King of England. You can see I have used the society of Antwerth to portrays Edwin IV and Richard III. ond mae'n cael ei ddwylliant y cyfnod yng ngyfnodd, ond mae'n ddweud ymlaen i'r ddweud yma yma, ymlaen i'r ddweud yma, ymlaen i'r ddweud yma. Yn ystod y ffyrdd yma, mae'n ddweud yma, ymlaen i'r ddweud yma, ac y Llywodraeth Yng nghymru yn ymddangos i'r ystyried yn Llywodraeth Cres Chyffedraol yn Dwyllgor. Mae'n gwybod yn y Llywodraeth Yng Nghymru, mae'n gwybod yn Ilywodraeth, mae'n gwybod yn ymddangos i'r ystyried. Mae'n gwybod yn ymddangos i'r ystyried, mae'n gwybod yn ymddangos i'r ystyried. Yn ystod o ddweud yn ymddangos i'r ystyried ar hyn i'n ddweud yn yr ymddangos i'r cyffredd i ystyried yn ymddangos i'n ddylch yn ymddangos i ymddangos i'r Yng nghymru, os yw i'n ddim yn cael y cerson oedd y rhan Selwyn Richard oedd Edward. Felly, nid o'n d скорse. First of all, let's just check which young Yorkist princes were in existence in 1486, when this Dublin King first appeared on the scene, and so whom mighty have been claiming to be. Well, the senior large of the orchestra family consisted of three brothers, Edward IV, the eldest brother, middle brother, George Duke of Barons, youngest brother, Richard III. And Richard had no living legitimate son in 1486, whom the Dublin King could have been claiming to be, but the other two, the elder two brothers, may have had living sons. Edward had produced two sons with his consort Elizabeth Woodville, the younger one was called Richard, the elder one was called Edward, names both of which have been associated by the Tudor Government with the Dublin King. So, was he claiming to be one of these, was he really? George Duke of Barons, the middle brother, he also produced two sons, but the younger one died very soon after his birth. The only one that survived was Edward of Warwick, again the name Edward, a name associated with the Dublin King. Version two of the story of the Dublin King is the version that was put out in England by the Tudor Government that was getting up. Henry VII claimed that the Dublin King was an imposter, and the version of Tudor history which has been passed down to us suggests that the Tudor Government claimed that his person's real name was Lambert. Lambert symbol, but we have to look at original sources, and if you look at original sources you will find only one Tudor source mentions the name Lambert symbol. It's mentioned in a parliamentary record, which I'll refer to again in a moment, and that name, Lambert symbol was then picked up by the early 16th century historian, Polydor Virgil, and recycled, and all subsequent historians have picked up what Polydor Virgil used and recycled it. This is why the name Lambert symbol has come down to us very strongly, but if you look at contemporary Tudor sources you'll find that there is another one which says that although this person crowned in Dublin was a pretender, his real name was not Lambert symbol, not Edward, not Richard, but John or something. So there are two English Tudor versions of the story. One says that the boy's name is Lambert symbol, but the other says that his real name is John, and we don't know which of those to believe. If either, the beat of the Lambert symbol story as native recycled by Polydor Virgil and other historians says that Lambert symbol came from Oxford, but again it's very important to look at the original contemporary sources. And if you look at the act of parliament which mentions the name Lambert symbol for the Dark and King, it doesn't say that he came from Oxford. It says that he was taken to Oxford by a priest in order to be trained there how to pretend to be a prince. So again, we have two opposite versions of the story. If this boy's name really was Lambert symbol, which we don't know, one version says he came from Oxford, but another version, the more accurate version in terms of a historic source says he was taken to Oxford and doesn't say where he came from. So we've got four names now for the Dark and King. You can see the questions are very, I'm not sure whether the answers were very enough. Was he called Richard? Was he called Edward? Was he called Lambert symbol? Or was he called John? Well, let's look at the evidence of the royal name and number that the Dark and King actually used. If he'd be Richard, presumably he would be Richard IV, would he? But if he was Edward, was he Edward V or was he Edward VI? Historians have produced both versions of the Edward. Some historians have claimed that he was Edward VI or pretending to be Edward VI. Others have said that he used the title Edward VI. So what is the truth? Well, first of all, let's have a look at the story of the so-called Princes in the Tower, Richard and Edward. I don't like the name Princes in the Tower because it sort of brackets them together as though they had lived their lives together and they had the same fate at the end of their lives. It sort of puts them in one package. Well, this was not, for example, Edward, the elder of the two boys, was set to be brought up at Loveloo Castle in 1473, the year in which the younger prince, Richard, was born. So how much did they see of each other in childhood? Probably very little until they both ended up in the Tower of London in the summer of 1483. They may not have known each other very well. In the case of Edward, Edward V, I would suggest that probably he died in July 1483. The evidence for that, first of all, we have this account written in December 1483 by Domenico Mancini, but I'm afraid I don't like the published version of this, which I think mistranslates some of the Latin. So I have authored the translation and the bits that I have authored are in the rivet, that Domenico Mancini was suggesting that death had carried Edward off. And the source of Domenico Mancini's information was Edward's doctor, Dr John Argentine, who had been visiting the boy regularly during the summer of 1483 in the Tower of London. Now, why does a doctor visit a patient regularly? So should she chant? Faith chest? She surely is because the patient is ill. Edward was ill and was being regularly visited by his doctor. And what Dr Argentine told Domenico Mancini was that Edward was confessing daily because the fear of death was pressing on him. Does that mean that he feared murder or that he felt ill? If you look at the list of children of Edward IV and Elizabeth IV, it's interesting to see the age to which they lived. We know that three of them died relatively young, Mary, Margaret, George. Possibly Edward also died relatively young. So maybe he was ill in the summer of 1483 and that was why he was being regularly visited by his doctor. Evidence for his death, I also discovered in the Colchester O's book, in the annual record for 1483 written on the 29th of September, Micklemas Day, reference to the late son of Edward IV, King Edward V. So the town clerk of Colchester writing in September 1483 thought that Edward was and the other piece of evidence to suggest that he died at about that time is the Requiem Mass, which was celebrated in the presence of Book of Six, is the fourth at the Sistine Chapel in Rome on the 23rd of September 1483 for King Edward. So I'm suggesting to you that Edward died, not that he was killed, that he died. The other interesting thing is that after 1483, no one ever appeared claiming to be. There was never a pretender claiming to be. We compare this with the story of the younger brother, Richard. As I said already, he was brought up not with his brother at Mother of Castle but at the Palace of Westminster with the rest of the royal family and did he perhaps survive? Jean de Monnie suggested that where the elder brother, Edward, in the tower was never a colleague, the younger brother was cheerful and spent time trying to persuade his miserable elder brother to dance and a little more contemporary source, a letter written by Sir William Sponer on the 21st of June 1483. Recall how Richard, the younger boy, had been handed over by his mother from Westminster Abbey, taken to the tower, where he is, blessed be Jesus, merry. So the elder brother was miserable and melancholy and seeing his doctor a lot, but the younger brother was merry. The elder brother was ill and possibly died, but the younger brother possibly survived. And intriguingly, later, we have more than one person, one person in particular, claiming to be. So nobody claimed to be Edward after 1483, but people did claim to be Richard. Now, in April 1483, when April 4 died, what happened? Well, the big problem was the issue over who had been his wife. He'd been living for a long time with Inesbeth Woodfield, who was the mother of his children, but there was also another lady, the elder who shows his daughter, Helen the Talbot. And Robert Skilington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, announced to the Royal Council in the summer of 1483 when they were preparing to crown the elder prince in the tower, Edward. We can't crown this boy, he's illegitimate because I married his father to Lady Helen Talbot before Edward IV made a secret marriage for Inesbeth Woodfield. This evidence from Skilington was put to the three states of the realm and ultimately to Parliament, and Parliament accepted it. And we have an act of Parliament that says, in black and white, dark brown and white, King Edward was and stood married and dropped light to one Dame Eleanor. There is an act of Parliament that says the Eleanor was the real Queen. On the basis of this, the throne was retracted from the children available and offered to his surviving younger brother Richard III. Offered. He shouldn't have done anything to set this emotion. He may not have wanted it to happen, but he was suddenly confronted with it. And he accepted it and he was crowned King. And he and his wife Eleanor Warwick, Eleanor Warwick and Neville, after their coronation, then went on tour of the country. And on this royal progress they were accompanied by a great friend of the Sir John Howard, now Duke Norfolk. Howard went with them as far as the shrine of our Lady of Couching in Reading. Then he was sent back to London to conduct a trial at Crosby's Place, the house in Bishop's State, which Richard had lived in as Duke of Gloucester. And the trial that Howard conducted in Crosby's Place was concerning people who were accused of having set off fires in the vicinity of the Tower of London in an attempt to extract the sons of Edward IV from the tower. We don't know who was behind this, but it's interesting that not very long afterwards, Richard III's former friend and now enemy and cousin, the Duke of Buckingham, started a rebellion and the object of his rebellion was the restoration of Edward V. That was the first object. Now, it doesn't seem to me very logical for Buckingham to think that he could re-establish Edward V on the throne if he didn't have Edward V in his hands, if Edward V is a prisoner of Richard III. So, it's also interesting that the person who later appeared claiming to be the Younger, Richard, said that he had been rescued by a Lord. It doesn't say the Lord. So, was it the Duke of Buckingham who was behind the scheme which would be going on in London in July 1483 to extract the boys from the tower? And what should be the outcome of that scheme? Had it failed or had it succeeded? We don't know. There is no documentary evidence. Press the arrow underneath the letter, so I can't move on to the next slide. But the key evidence in the case of the Darkling King is the evidence that shows what royal name and number he used. This is it. It's a document from the York City Archives. It's a letter from the Darkling King to the Nair of York in 1487, requesting entry to the city of York. And there is his name and number. King Edward VI. So, the evidence is absolutely clear whether I'm right about Edward V when he died or not, whether Richard the Younger prince had survived or not, is irrelevant, because the Darkling King was using the name Edward and the number VI. Therefore, he was not claiming to be either the sons of Edward V. He was claiming to be the son of the Duke and Duchess of Cowins, Edward IV. What is more, some Tuja sources say that he was claiming to be the Earl of Water. All the continental contemporary sources say that he was claiming to be the Earl of Water. And all the Irish sources say he was claiming to be. So I think we can be quite clear on this. What is more, the continental and Irish sources say he was the Earl of Water. So, where are you about? We now have two conflicting life histories for the Earl of Water. In official account, he's the son of the Duke and Duchess of Cowins, of course. His mother died soon after he was born, said he was left with just one parent. And then, of course, his father was executed by Edward IV in a rather interesting way in the Tower of London in order to avoid shedding royal blood. So, the boy became an orphan at a very early age. King and his sister, later the Countess of Salisbury, were taken under the guardianship of their uncle, the King Edward. Edward IV appointed his stepson, Thomas Gray, Marcus Adorset, son of his, of Woodville, as a guardian of the Earl of Water. And because the Marcus Adorset at that time was in control of the Tower of London, it's possible that the little boy was brought up there and that he at that stage became a third Prince in the Tower. But if he didn't, he certainly did later. When Richard III came to the throne, he sent the Earl of Warwick and other young Yorkist princes and princesses up north, just outside York, to the castle of Sherwood Parkman, and for the next year or so they did there. But when Henry VII took power, he had them all brought back to London. He was particularly concerned about the Earl of Warwick. Why? Well, it concerns the fact that Henry VII was claiming to be the heir of the last Black History of the King Henry VI. And if we look at what Henry VI had done and said in 1477, it was that after his own immediate family, the next Lancastrian heir to the throne was George Duke of Clowns. George was the Lancastrian heir to the throne. George had subsequently been executed, but his son was still alive. So in 1486, the Earl of Warwick, not Henry VII, but the Earl of Warwick was the legitimate Lancastrian heir to the throne. Therefore he was the big enemy in the eyes of Henry VII that needed to be kept under careful control. Henry VII was in London very careful control. His dear mother, Lady Margaret Countess, she was made governor of the Earl of Warwick. In 1486, when stories began to appear that there was another Earl of Warwick on the scene, Henry VII put his Earl of Warwick on display, public display at St Paul's Cathedral. Hoping that people would recognise him, and subsequently he imprisoned him in the Tower of London, so he definitely became the third prince in the Tower of London. But what is the problem with recognising the Earl of Warwick when Henry VII put him on display at St Paul's Cathedral? How many Londoners had seen him on a regular daily basis? And indeed, how many people could recognise him at earlier stages in his life? When his father died, the Earl of Warwick had been three years old. So if he didn't look like this portrait from the Ralph's robes, which looks like a sort of teenager, he would have looked more like that. Have people before never seen him before? We don't know, but possibly he had, because he'd been his thought father. Now he may have done that personally, or you may have done it vicariously. But if he'd done it personally, he had seen the Earl of Warwick before, when he was a few days old. Would he have recognised the child that the Clowns servants from Warwick Castle handed over to him after the Duke of Clowns had been executed early in 1472? Or would he just have accepted what the Clowns servants were saying? This is a test. How many children are you seeing more than once? Two, three, none? I'll give you a little look. You see you've seen some little children, a few days old, and then you've seen some older children, maybe about three. Could you recognise everybody? The question is, was Edward IV able to recognise the child that was handed over to him? And the reason why this is important is a very significant element of this story. We have accounts of other people claiming to be lost royal children. Various people in the early 19th century claimed to be Louis XVII, the child who grew up there. May have died in the temple or may have escaped. Various people claimed to be children of the Romanoffs. Some of them claimed for a very long time. All of them turned out to be false. All of them can be disproved. But there is something unique about the story of the Earl of Warwick, which we need to look at now. The Duke of Cynus had Irish connections. He was a governor of Ireland, left hand of Ireland, or was brought ahead of the fall. But he'd also been born in Ireland at Dublin Castle and brought up there in his early childhood in Dublin, in Dublin Castle. He was of Anglo-Irish descent through the Earl of Ulster. And even Irish royal physician on things was, well, I'm going to show you something such a certain and something such a probable. He was certainly an enemy of the Woodfills. He may have known something about the story of Eleanor Talbot and her marriage to Edward IV. He was certainly the subject of a prophecy that said that after Edward IV, G would be king. And he may have been behind. He certainly believed that his wife, the Duchess of Clowns, had been murdered. And he may have believed that his enemy, Elizabeth Woodville, was behind it. At any rate, he felt threatened. He trusted his sister, Margaret, Duchess of Birmingham. And he trusted his left hand in Ireland, his deputy in Ireland, sorry, the Earl of Hildare. So, feeling threatened by the Woodfills in England, feeling that his wife and possibly their second son had just been murdered, he wanted to protect his surviving son in the Earl of Warwick. And so we know, because he was accused of this in the act of a tandem which led to his execution, he wanted to smuggle his son out of the country, either to London's or to Ireland. We know he was planning to do this. Now, this is something unique because nobody suggests that Lewis and Dean, somebody was smuggling out, one of his parents was smuggling out of the country, or the Grand Duchess Anastasia, one of her parents was smuggling out of Russia. But here we have a case where we are told that the boy's father was trying to get him out of the country and substitute an impostor for him in the government's nurseries. Is that his answering questions? Now, I'm suggesting to you that in the end that you could plan to wake with Ireland, trying to smuggle his son there into the custody of the Earl of Hildare, and that maybe the boy was brought up in the new custody. George's sister did later, after her brother's wall date, was, she knew about a boy in Ireland who might be her brother's clarence's son, and she sent for this boy and had him brought to her in Flanders, to her palace in Metland. On behalf of records, recording the presence there in 1486 of Clarence's son, and the fact that Margaret was giving him presence, she also had in her palace at Metland another nephew, John de la Pau, Earl of Lincoln, who was the eldest. Her house is my home level, and the King of Great Support, Richard the Third. And these two, talks to Margaret, talks to the boy she brought to her palace, acknowledged him as the Yorkist there, and went with him, and an army paid for by back to Ireland. And in Ireland, in Christchurch with Eagle in Dublin, the little boy was crowned King. And this is him on his state seal, which I found in the Irish National Library, the only surviving imprint of it. We have documents issued in Ireland in his name, government documents, and it seems that coins were issued in his name. This coin, called the Thru Crowns Groot. This particular one from my collection has had the names picked off it, unfortunately, but if you look at a printed, an engraved version, you can see that this one bears the name Edward. After the coronation, there was an invasion of England, eventually the Battle of Snow, and the Dublin King was defeated. And we then have a boy in Henry VII's kitchens turning the street. And we told that this was the Dublin King. But we also told that he was aged about 17, which is intriguing because at one end of the 7th's heralds, who had gone to inspect the Dublin King in Dublin while he was still there, had said that he was aged about 10, quite a big gap. So was the person in the kitchens, the person who had been crowned in Dublin, the person who had been crowned in Dublin? Henry VII, in 1489, did a party for the Irish Lords. He was, by that time, re-establishing his command of Ireland. He invited all the Anglo-Irish Lords to England and why he was served by it to them. And he had it served by Lambert Cyngor, the boy who was working in his kitchens. He seems to have hoped that the Irish Lords would recognise this person and comment on the fact that they were being served their classes or rather tankards at wine by the person they formerly had crowned King. But none of them did. And when Henry VII said something to try and encourage them to recognise him, one Irish Lord said that he recognised this person as the Dublin King. Is it for somebody who had opposed the coronation of the Dublin King and had probably never actually seen the boy in Ireland? It's an intriguing story. Against it, we have an account that Evelyn Dunlopple, the younger brother of the Earl Lincoln, later Earl Suffolch, after the battle of Stoke, had rescued the Dublin King who had been captured after the battle, rescued him and smuggled him back to London. I don't know how to put it. How did he end up with this? He was definitely claiming to be the Earl of the War, but was he the real Earl of the War or was he possibly a substitute child, one of the substitute boys that the Duke of Clans was collecting together for his bit of intrigue to try and get his real somewhere, rescue and save somewhere, and was it a substitute? But if it was a substitute, possibly he was brought up in Ireland by people who thought that he was the Earl of the War, understanding that his name was Evelyn. So he made the boy himself may have believed that he was the Earl of the War even if he wasn't. Brought up by the Earl of the War. And the other question that we have is was the guy who worked in Henry VII's kitchens the same as the person who'd been crowned in Dublin or had the person crowned in Dublin been rescued by his cousin, Edmindor O'rtham, taken to London? It's big questions. I don't have answers to them. But I think the big questions are much more important than just accepting the 500 years recycling of Polydor Virgil's version of the story that there was an imposter called the matter of signal. I think it's very important to get behind that and try and hunt for the truth. Did you recognise from the pictures that I showed you? Two? Any advance on two? Three? Anybody got less than two? Did you recognise any? One? OK. The answer is one. But it was just to show you how difficult it can be to recognise at the age of three or four someone that you only saw when they were a few days old. Thank you very much.